User talk:Zxcvbnm/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Proposed move of Tam o' shanter (cap) to Tam o' shanter

Hello Zxcvbnm. I declined this at WP:RMTR because there is an existing DAB page at Tam O'Shanter. If you still think the move is a good idea you can file it as a regular move, but please explain how you would like all the DABs to work out. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: "Tam o' shanter" is the only thing there that is lowercase. Hopefully now you will see my rationale for moving the page, due to WP:DIFFCAPS._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

At present Tam o' shanter is a redirect to Tam o' Shanter. I would be reluctant to rest a distinction on such a thin reed as WP:DIFFCAPS when something is this confusing. Feel free to open a {{Requested move}} if you disagree. EdJohnston (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Friendly suggestion about linking to evidence when nominating RMs

Hey, I've noticed in a lot of RMs that you open you will mention pageviews as part of your reasoning for the move. It would be helpful if you could link to the pageview comparison in the nom, just to save each other editor having to go to the pageview tool and enter the relevant article names. (It would also help avoid miscommunications where different editors get different results because they used different time ranges, daily vs. monthly views, or included a different set of articles in their analysis.) Same goes for ngrams etc. Cheers. Colin M (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Travesti

When you turned Travesti into a DAB oage, you may have overlooked WP:FIXDABLINKS. The change broke 639 links, which will have to be fixed by hand by someone or other. Narky Blert (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I think it's actually far less than that though, as the vast majority of those were due to a template being on those pages that had the incorect link._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Merging Kull Warrior

I am merging some Stargate articles, and after your Kull Warrior concerns at AfD, I want to let you know that I've merged the article to List of Stargate SG-1 characters#Other alien recurring characters. I think it works fine there. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, that is a good WP:ATD._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Technology in Stargate for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Technology in Stargate is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technology in Stargate (2nd nomination) 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. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Others

Worth looking at for RM:

• A good day to die (phrase)
• Crowned heads of Europe (phrase)
• Get a life (idiom)
• Holy cow (expression)
• Skeleton in the closet (idiom)
• The quick and the dead (idiom)

Hyperbolick (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Geometry Wars

I saw that you have done some work on Geometry Wars, and now there is a page for the series itself. Thanks for your work. I have done some more work on it, as you can see in the version histories. Now, Geometry wars redirects to this series page, instead of just Retro Evolved. Were the changes I made consistent with what you had in mind? BirdValiant (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@BirdValiant: Yes, please feel free to expand as you see fit. I just added the bare minimum so it can definitely be expanded with some more context about the series._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm: I probably won't, but I'm just glad to see that the pages have enjoyed some caretaking. I actually created the article back in 2005, and it's great to see how it has taken shape over this time. BirdValiant (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

This time

I disagree (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hard fantasy (2nd nomination)). Seems like a notable topic, just badly written article with poor sources. But sources are out there, per links in my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Squibb Park Bridge

On 22 December 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Squibb Park Bridge, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that New York City's "seemingly cursed" $4 million Squibb Park Bridge was demolished less than seven years after it was built? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Squibb Park Bridge. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Squibb Park Bridge), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはZxcvbnmたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 02:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

All Ghillied Up

Just to let you know, I have recreated and expanded the All Ghillied Up. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

@Spy-cicle: Thank you. You might also be interested in checking the history of The Silent Cartographer. It has no less than 5 reception comments from reliable gaming press sources, there may be more to be found._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I will have a look but I am not that familiar with Halo as I have never really played it.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Woven(video Game) not notable

Dear Zxcvbnm, you wrote at Draft:Woven_(video_game) that alle game sites quoted are minor game sites and therefore the sources are unreliable. I understand they are not the biggest of gamereview sites (although swithUp and PSU are pretty big). But most of the websites that were used in writing the articles are notable enough by the 4 pages Metacritic has for the game, which atleast validates them up to a certain degree. User talk:Cebalan —Preceding undated comment added 08:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cebalan: A site being on Metacritic doesn't actually prove anything, since it's just an automated review aggregator. It can definitely be an indicator of whether something is notable, but that's only if the individual reviews are from reliable sites. There are plenty of non notable games with a Metacritic score. You can look at WP:VG/S for a list of reliable/unreliable sources. If all the sources for an article are not listed there as reliable it's a good sign that it's not actually notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm: Thank you for your quick response. I understand Metacritic is a review aggregator, but they don't include just any review, as they have a strict selection policy of their own. I've familiarized myself with WP:VG/S and crossrefenced it with a list of 49 written reviews and 157 gamepress articles. To my surprise, besides a mention by Adventure Gamers, there seems very little overlap. I guess Youtuber/streamer coverage will not count towards notability just yet? There are over 200 vids from streamers and youtubers about this game, 9 of with 200.000+ viewers. I'm not saying its the most notable game of the century, clearly it is not (and the article doesn't pretend it is, or could be rewritten if you think it does) but the game has had considerable coverage. Also, and the reason why I first thought it might be notable nough, it has been written about three times in Dutch Game Industry Magazine control-online, a leading website where it concerns Dutch game industry. Also, it launched not just on Steam (which attracts a lot of unnotable titles) but also PS4, Xbox One and Switch, each with their own quality control, which is quite a (notable) feat for a small indie team, the two major reason I thought the article might be worth writing. Are there other ways to 'prove' it was notable besides coverage? The game launched again Pokemon Sword/shield and Star wars, so most notable channels didn't cover the game. Which is a shame, if you look at the other coverage it has. In any case, I thank you for your time. Any pointers towards the rest of the article, for if ever I try my hand at writing again? _{User:Cebalan (TALK)} 17:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cebalan:There are no ways to prove notability besides coverage in reliable sources. Streamers and player count numbers do not count towards notability. So you can think the game can be as underrated and deserving of coverage as you want but if it doesn't have reliable sources, that is that.

I checked the magazine, but those seem to be mostly about the game's Kickstarter and the studio itself. They'd be usable in the Development section if the game was notable, but don't offer much opinions about the actual game._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm: This isn't about whether i think the game is underrated or deserving of more coverage. A Wikipedia page is never about providing coverage. But I do think it would have serious gaps in its knowledge base if it did not include indie games with considerable coverage that ran a successful production and multi-platform launch like Pine, Deliver us the moon, Woven next to other smaller but successful indieprojects such as Herald. Games with bigger budgets get written about sooner by the 'notable sources', and I abhor the idea that it takes a big budget to be on wikipedia. Those 157 articles aren't on the notable list, but 140+ aren't on the unreliable list either. Anyway, that's criticism on how the current system works, and even if we would agree, that still wouldn't change the system that you are following correctly. The article can be deleted (unless it needs second opinion from somewhere) And I'll keep the article as a draft in my sandbox, for if and when other sources become available that proof enhanced notability, and I'll refrain from writing the other ones. Sorry for taking up your time. With kind regards,_{User:Cebalan (TALK)} 11:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cebalan: It certainly doesn't take a big budget to get on Wikipedia. I've created dozens of articles about small indie titles with extremely low budgets. Behold the Kickmen is one example. However, that game got reviews on Rock, Paper Shotgun, Eurogamer, PC Gamer, Engadget and Polygon. Wikipedia isn't a marketing tool so it's up to the developer to market their game in such a way that it gets seen, which that developer clearly did._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:868-HACK Cover Image.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:868-HACK Cover Image.jpg. 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).

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) 18:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

About your comment on Draft:List of Swedish video game developers

Dear Zxcvbnm,

I read your comment on my Draft:List of Swedish video game developers, Comment: Redundant content fork. Please add this to List of video game developers, which allows for sorting by country. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC) The draft has 39 companies in the list. I was thinking about adding a bit of general knowledge about Swedish video game industry if that matters, gathering secondary sources and adding an info box. I'm not sure if that's ok.

I found a similar article called 'List of video game companies of Sweden' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_game_companies_of_Sweden This article has 38 companies in the list. 8 active companies are not in my draft.

Can I add the draft there or must I edit the list on 'List of video game developers'? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_game_developers

I hope you can answer my questions.

All the best

Tony Westling — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyWestling-Dataspelsbranschen (talk • contribs) 16:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@TonyWestling-Dataspelsbranschen: I would try to add the content into the general list of game developers, as well as merging the other article you found if there are any companies that are missing from your draft. If you believe you have sufficient sources for an article about the Swedish game industry, you can make Video gaming in Sweden instead, since the category Category:Video gaming in Sweden currently lacks a main article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Predator: Hunting Grounds

Honestly, you may as well delete that draft. The author was banned from Wikipedia a few months back and their only activity has been creating sock accounts that have been rooted out, as well. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 22:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Mayannumbersystem.png

The file File:Mayannumbersystem.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

As I'm told the young people say - dude, WTF?

Snow keep after two keep votes? I mean, I agree it's a keep, but that seems... excessive. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I would have voted keep as well, and it doesn't seem like WP:BEFORE was performed properly or that it would be controversial in any way to keep it. I just couldn't see anyone voting delete._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Snows should be obvious. Same-day and at-least one questioning keep is not usually a snow. --Izno (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a little too quick on the trigger, I will keep that in mind for next time._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Call of Duty League and its teams.

Hi Zxcvbnm,

Seeing as you recently approved the Call of Duty League article I was wondering if you could give a quick glance at some of the team articles as well. Predominantly the Draft:London Royal Ravens article which I believed was ready however another editor moved it back to draft as she deemed it as not noteworthy and also the Los Angeles Guerrillas article which I also thought was ready however the same editor decided to for some reason make a re-direct to the parent group which has only one mention of the team. I will also be working on the remainder of the teams that currently remain in the draft stage and hopefully I can get them up to scratch as soon as possible.

Kind regards --Brandon Downes (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Brandon Downes:The Royal Ravens article seems lacking in both content and reliable sources to be notable. Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, there should be something that is actually special about the team itself that would warrant an article. I'd say the Guerillas article is the same way. They should probably all be merged into the main Call of Duty League article for the time being, minus the unnecessary rosters._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:EMAIL

Any reason you don't have an email communication enabled? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I never really saw the need. Is there a need?_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

New message from Bobherry

Hello, Zxcvbnm. You have new messages at Bobherry's talk page.
Message added 20:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bobherry Talk Edits 20:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tharsis (video game)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tharsis (video game) 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 Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you, but...

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Kaizo/Kaizō disruptive unilateral undiscussed moves

Undiscussed unilteral moves to add unnecessary parenthetic disambiguation to the titles of the articles at the WP:NATURALly disambiguated Kaizo and Kaizō titles[1] [2] is disruptive. Please do not make potentially controversial title changes like that and, instead, go to WP:RM in the first place, like you eventually did at Talk:Kaizo#Requested_move_20_February_2020. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 19:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tharsis (video game)

The article Tharsis (video game) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tharsis (video game) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Newsletter interview

Hey there Zxcvbnm. Was wondering if you would be interested in being interviews for the Video Game Newsletter for this quarter. GamerPro64 19:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@GamerPro64:Sure, I don't mind! I'm assuming I have to attach an email to my account though... :P_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

No I don’t do email interviews. I usually have a draft set up somewhere here. I’ll write them up and then let you know when they are complete. GamerPro64 20:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Got some questions ready for you here.GamerPro64 04:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Walking city has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Walking city. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Walking city has been accepted

Walking city, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Help with External Wiki Link?

Hello Zxcvbnm! Perhaps you would be interested in helping me out with the following problem: You have repeatedly stated in AfD discussion that some fictional elements better should be covered in fan wikis. Quite a bit of Dungeons & Dragons content has now been removed from Wikipedia based on that. I would like to point interested readers to the Forgotten Realms Wiki, the most extensive and presumably most well-kept wiki for D&D from the Forgotten Realms article. However, there have been some objections to such a wiki link. Would you perhaps like to give your opinion here? Thanks a lot. Daranios (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello again! Maybe this went unnoticed before: You have recently advocated again that Fandom wikis can be valuable resources for content not deemed notable enough for Wikipedia. Would you like to help persons looking for such content on Wikipedia find such a resource by including a link to the Forgotten Realms Wiki at least in the Forgotten Realms article? Thanks. Daranios (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Daranios: Sorry for missing your message, you're right that I didn't catch it the first time. I added my statement of support._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Daranios (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi Zxcvbnm, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

"Ahri" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Ahri. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 3#Ahri until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. BDD (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Metroidlogo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Metroidlogo.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).

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) 02:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The Silent Cartographer

Hi, I saw that you seemed to be in support of this article, so I wanted to let you know that I gathered some sources. A little slapdash, but feel free to thumb through them if you'd like to try recreating the article. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 09:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Abryn: Excellent, that is quite a lot. I think it would be hard to argue that the level on its own is not notable now. Since you seem to be collecting sources for game levels, I also suggest attempting to find ones for the Demon's/Dark Souls levels, Anor Londo, Sen's Fortress and Tower of Latria which I made/attempted to make articles for in the past and were redirected as non-notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I can try gathering some sources on those. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 20:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

A goat for you!

I don't know why this category exists, but here, have a goat for your work on Silent Cartographer.

Bryn (talk) (contributions) 03:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Backlog

At Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements. Some stuff is getting relisted. We could use more comments from the experienced editors. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Request on AFC Submission Draft: TruckersFM

Hey Zxcvbnm, I hope this is the correct way to contact you via your talk page.

Thanks for reviewing my Wikipedia article (TruckersFM) and I really do appreciate the feedback, I will be sure to add more reliable and noteworthy sources when they become available. I just wanted to ask as it was my first written Wikipedia article, was anything there anything else in your opinion holding it back from being approved? Appreciate you and your time! Thanks :) AlexanderBlackman (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

No, the article seems fine, the issue is just with the notability of the article. When I checked I could just find those two reliable independent sources, but if you can find another then let me know._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Zxcvbnm, I really do appreciate your feedback. I do have a article about TruckersFM written in Mandarin, however, am I correct in saying that articles are preferred to be written in the same language as the article? Otherwise, I will be sure to let you know when I do have another reliable independently sourced article (I hope letting you know via the talk page is ok?) thanks again! AlexanderBlackman (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

No, sources do not have to be in the same language. If there are other language sources that would be significant news sources, then it should definitely pass muster._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, I have added this new source into the draft. I have re-submitted the draft for review. thank you again for your help and advice! AlexanderBlackman (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I think with that article it just scooches over the notability line, assuming it's an independent article written by a tech journalist. The other two articles weren't bad, but it needed more evidence of widespread coverage._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Understood, it is (to my knowledge) an article written by a independent journalist group in China and published on Sina (the Largest Chinese Internet Portal) however I understand it is a bit difficult to tell with it being in a foreign language that doesn't always translate very well. Either way, I'm happy to hear that you think it passes the mark and again, really appreciate you and your time in helping me (and the Wikipedia community!) AlexanderBlackman (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@AlexanderBlackman: I think one other thing is, the article photo given seems a bit unnecessary. It reads "Some members of the team", but gives no reason why it would be relevant to the article. Just as an example, the Microsoft article has a picture of Steve Ballmer because he is relevant, but not a group photo of the current members of a Microsoft department, because that wouldn't be. I would probably say it should be removed entirely, as there is no clear reason for it to be there.

Also, since you took the photo and are therefore evidently a member of said team, you should probably disclose that per WP:COIEDIT. Not that you are going against protocol since you are supposed to go through AfC in these sorts of situations, but not disclosing that fact is against Wikipedia policy regardless._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that advice, I wasn't aware and just thought it made a nice contribution to the Wiki Article, however since it doesn't really hold a purpose to reference the article I will remove it now. On the subject of conflict of interest, I thought the disclosure I have on my profile would be enough, but would I need to publish this anywhere else after removing the photo? AlexanderBlackman (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I assumed you had to put it on the talk page, but I'm not an expert on it, so maybe your own user page is sufficient. In any case, it otherwise seems okay, so I will approve it after some copyediting._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Fantastic news! Thank you so much Zxcvbm, it has been a really positive experience working on my first wikipedia article and having the pleasure to work with you. I have added the COI to my talk page as-well, just to be safe! Appreciate your time, experience and help. AlexanderBlackman (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Emulator article

Hi Zxcvbnm, thanks for reviewing my submission and I appreciate the feedback, though the submission was declined. I see that the reason it was declined is because it may seem too soon for an article exist; specifically, the fact that the subject of the article does not have a stable release version listed. Looking at a couple of similar published articles (currently maintained console emulators), neither contain stable releases either but are published nonetheless. Would subtracting the version info entirely (as one of them did) make the article eligible for publishing? Or is there something else I can add or subtract that would make the article worthy of publishing? --FrankOlney (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@FrankOlney: In my personal view, I don't think there is anything you can do to make it notable, although I declined rather than rejected the article just in case. I would caution using other emulator articles as a guide due to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, there are many other emulator articles that wouldn't survive AfD. An example of an emulator I would say is certainly notable is Dolphin (emulator). It got mentions in the highest echelons of the gaming press, such as Kotaku, PC Gamer, Engadget, and 1up.com among others. Contrasting to Ryujinx, it was only mentioned so far in relatively minor sites that wouldn't qualify as WP:RS. Perhaps in the future once development proceeds further it will pick up steam and have more traction, but I have no idea when that would be._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Category:Pokémon fangames has been nominated for merging

Category:Pokémon fangames has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ★Trekker (talk) 08:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Reception Section

Hey I am just wondering what I should put in the Reception section of Draft:Simon Belmont if not listicles.(Oinkers42) (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@(Oinkers42): Preferably there would be significant mentions in articles from reputable outlets (see WP:VG/S for a list of most of them) that would indicate he is a character of note. Listicles would have been more than sufficient in the past but now standards are higher and "10th best whip-wielding character" is not a real indicator of any larger notability. An example of something significant is like this. It's a full article, written specifically discussing the character or their powers and critiquing their personality. Multiple things like that would indicate they are individually notable. Another example would be an article about the character's development. In the current draft there is no explanation why the character was made or why he is a whip-wielding vampire hunter, etc._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia

Please remember to identify the source of the material in your edit when copying within Wikipedia. while I presume you referred to Adult_Swim when you said "main article", that doesn't meet with our best practices.

This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. For future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, adding a link to the source and the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.S Philbrick(Talk) 17:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Champion (League of Legends)

It would appear as though your decision regarding this draft was ignored. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 10:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Well I must give thanks for honoring my WP:G7 request on the article. Out of courtesy I’d like to ask you for the draft back here instead of at WP:REFUND..—Prisencolin (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Prisencolin: I wasn't the one who deleted the article, I'm not an admin. I just did a WP:NAC on the discussion because with the article deleted, there was no reason for it to continue._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Prisencolin: That said, as I said in the discussion there should be no need to restore a draft because it will never survive an AfD even if it manages to get through AfC. You are much better off focusing on improving League of Legends, which is still not even a Good Article and has an undersourced Champions section. Continuing to bypass consensus is going to be called out as disruptive editing sooner or later._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Minetest

Hi! I saw this draft while I was doing some review, but I couldn't make up my mind on it. I did see one decent source there [3], and I added another one [4] (Linux Magazine and Linux Format). But I wasn't able to find more beyond that, although it is mentioned a lot in scholar works. However, it could technically squeak through WP:GNG, although I'd have it maybe merged with Minecraft article somehow, rather than a separate article. Saying nothing changed since 2012's AfD (and both sources are in 2017, 5 years later) is too much though. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jovanmilic97: I more meant that nothing had changed with regards to the article itself. Which is why I did not outright reject it for non-notability, as it still had potential. I would be happy to approve it once the unreliable sources are removed and the reliable ones added._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems like a marginal case. I'll do some Google Scholar check to see if any of the works there mention it in WP:SIGCOV. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Concerning the last review of Draft:Minetest: Your comment states "It is mentioned in a few papers, but I don't see the typical indications of notability like reviews or significant critical commentary." But when compared with the previous review before this last one, I've actually added two new references to address the issue with notability: the video review by Ricks, Ryndon, an independent video blogger with 150K subscribers, and a comprehensive review by Saunders, Mike, in Linux Magazine, which is a printed journal. In addition to these two new sources, I've also added the recent interview of the lead developer by Wikinews. Can you please clarify whether these have helped to improve notability, and whether we need to produce yet more sources of the same nature? SoylentCow (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Bloodstained (series) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bloodstained (series) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloodstained (series) 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. Glades12 (talk) 09:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Resubmition of Draft:Death and Taxes (video game)

Hello! Just sending you a quick message to let you know that I've overhauled the draft page for Death and Taxes. You declined it in its previous state 7 months ago. Although I'm not the original creator of the page, I figured I'd notify you since it's been so long. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@OmegaFallon: Hi. I still think the game would fail WP:GNG as it is currently. Not all sources are equal, and the article uses a number of unreliable sources that should be outright removed. See WP:VG/S. However, the Switch release might result in a crop of new reviews, so you should probably wait until after that._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Which sources, exactly? The ones I've chosen seem to mostly be from well-known publications. Are you referring to Big Boss Battle and Keen Gamer? On a second look I'd agree that maybe those aren't suitable, but the rest seem fine. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@OmegaFallon:Forbes source is written by a "contributor". Consensus is: "Articles written by Forbes contributors do not have the same editorial oversight and may not be reliable. Editors are encouraged to find alternatives to contributor pieces.". PC Gamer is reliable, but the source isn't a full review and is just a trivial mention. Indie Games Plus - another trivial mention. AltWire - an interview, therefore a WP:PRIMARY source that doesn't count towards notability. Explica - no proof that it is a reliable source. Pallas University is also a WP:PRIMARY source. Ultimately, the only truly significant and reliable reference is the Rock, Paper Shotgun one written by Alice Bell, but an article requires multiple instances of significant coverage to be notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@OmegaFallon: It looks like the page got accepted by someone else anyway. But if the Switch version of the game does not result in better sources, I wouldn't be surprised if the page was AfD'd sometime down the line._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Video game franchises introduced in 2018

A tag has been placed on Category:Video game franchises introduced in 2018 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GPD Win Max

Hi @Zxcvbnm: I see you closed that Afd outside consensus and against policy. You perhaps don't know but if you vote in some discussion, you don't close it, ever. Any discussion, Afd, RFC. You let some other person do it, to ensure it is done fairly and there is no conflict of interest. Please, do not do it again. Also there wasn't a nomination to close per WP:AFD guidelines, there was a question. Unless there is a Nomination Withdrawn message, it is never closed unless done by administrator and there is agreement to close it. Please dont do it again. scope_creep^Talk 07:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

You have done 1500 Afd's and still not following policy. I'm surprised. Please be more careful next time. scope_creep^Talk 08:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Scope creep: Apologies, given that it was seemingly withdrawn by the nominator, as well as a SNOW keep, I decided to WP:IAR and go with what would have been the obvious and impossible to debate conclusion of that nomination. I would never have closed if there was any apparent debate about the article's notability or if it was ever in doubt. I figured it would be uncontroversial, but I guess there is still a problem with it._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be a solid Keep, no doubt, I guess its passed. I got pulled for the same behaviour last year and although I did know about it, I charged on for a Snow Keep and with minutes I got a admin warning. I didn't expect it, for something so innocuous. It is seen as disruptive. Hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 18:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Ryujinx emulator page submission

Hi, The comments of Draft:Ryujinx mention Ryujinx is not reliable. However, based on the current state of the emulator, it's able to run games Yuzu couldn't, such as Devil May Cry 3 Special Edition (Yuzu shows black screen after the Capcom logo while Ryujinx runs it from start to finish if by a simple configuration of enabling "Ignore Missing Services" hack. Astral Chain in Yuzu suffers GPU memory leak which shut down after 5+ min of play while Ryujinx doesn't.

I'd suggest publish the Ryujinx page. Islandking2000 (talk) 06:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Islandking2000: I'm sure the emulator itself is reliable, I just meant WP:UNRELIABLE sources. Whether or not it works well, it has to pass the notability test before it can be an article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Did you check the page? I have added three more sources stating Ryujinx is reliable, one of which is the same reliable source Yuzu page is using. And if you compare the current Ryujinx page with the Yuzu page when it was first approved to be published, Ryujinx page more than qualifies the notability test. Islandking2000 (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Islandking2000:The Yuzu page was created by an anonymous IP editor; it never went through AfC or was vetted for notability. It was never "approved" for publishing, as users can also make pages right away with minimal oversight. Infact I voted "Delete" in the AfD that was done for it in 2019, citing a lack of notability, which was true at that time. A Gizmodo article has appeared since then about it, making it more of a borderline case.

To survive deletion, an article has to have significant coverage in reliable sources. Significant means it has to be an indepth discussion and not just "this thing is good; take a look". And reliable means the site has to have proven editorial oversight. Please see WP:VG/S for what is reliable. If there is a game journalism source that is listed under Unreliable or not listed, it is probably not usable in the article. Putting a massive amount of trivial sources in to make it look notable is called WP:REFBOMBing but does not mean it is actually notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Alright, then you must mean this version of the Yuzu page, because that's when AfD was removed, and thus allowed to be published. The page has two reliable sources, Kotaku, and PC Gamer; one situational, being Forbes.

With the current edit, Ryujinx page has one reliable sources. Engadget, and mentioned in another, Nintendo life; two situational, being Forbes, and Wccftech.

We both know that Switch is still selling, thus talking about its emulation is an dedicated thing, which is why we do not see many published articles about it, even Yuzu, its current page only has two reliable sources (mentioned above), mixed with questionables, such as its website, twitter, etc. But it's quite understandable.

We also know that Ryujinx is a reliable emulator, so what's stopping Wikipedia from letting more people know about this useful software? Islandking2000 (talk) 04:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Islandking2000:Usually, "3 significant mentions in reliable sources" is the threshold that is used, at least by the video game project, to ensure that something is notable and got widespread coverage. The mention in Engadget is not quite up to the level of significant, as only a couple paragraphs, and the one in Nintendo Life is more about the custom dungeon than it is about the emulator, so it's unclear whether it would even be relevant to the article. This doesn't mean the emulator will not be more notable in the future, but it's still an example of WP:TOOSOON and needs more time to percolate. It has nothing to do with whether Nintendo dislikes it or not (see WP:NOTCENSORED) but a dearth of coverage in general.

Or to use a metaphor, let's say your friend Bob is the world's best Chess player. You might know it but if there's only a single small article about it anywhere of note, then it's going to be hard to prove for certain. But he might go on to win a championship and get several huge articles written about that, at some point in the future._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

To expound on that, Wikipedia is not an advertising tool, so it is not for letting people know about new software, just documenting software that became notable separately from Wikipedia._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Simple question: Where're the three reliable sources Yuzu page has and had when AfD was removed? Islandking2000 (talk) 05:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Islandking2000:The sourcing was pretty poor. It had a few reliable sources but nothing I'd call significant. It's important to note, however, that it did not close as Keep, but as No Consensus, and most of the Keep votes were impassioned pleas to WP:ITSNOTABLE without mentioning why. The sheer amount of keep votes overwhelmed the nomination but did not really prove anything._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

What about PCSX2? three reliable sources? Islandking2000 (talk) 06:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Islandking2000:Note that "what about X?" is not a viable argument in deletion discussions; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The last AfD was done in 2013 when articles were judged by totally different standards. The emulator does have two reliable, significant sources here and here. I don't think these are in the article but would probably be able to successfully argue for notability if it ever underwent an AfD when combined with the PC World and (possibly?) Geek.com article, though I am unable to access it without going into Internet Archive._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Citra (emulator) is not as old as PCSX2 and should withhold the current standard, but it doesn't, as it's not having three reliable sources yet it still stands.

But I was not asking questions because I want to see those pages deleted, I asked because I want to find a way to present another useful software rather than having to wait for who knows how long. Well I guess there is way: force a redirection, then wait for the deletion discussion page just like Yuzu page did, gather enough allies, "overwhelm" the deletion vote by 8 to 5, the page stays, no more notability test, not beautiful, but a swift way to bypass the rigid check.

I'm not going to do that. Just urge you guys to think about the consequences - Ryujinx stays hidden while Yuzu is approved for publishing (Don't deny it, it's the fact, solid result, that's what matters), is it fair? Shouldn't Wikipedia have some flexible ways to treat gaming emulators? Such as, considering videos to be reliable sauces if there're a significant number of people who are not affiliated with the software uploaded videos showing the functionality of the emulator, instead of waiting for three people working in medias which have absolutely no apparent duty to publish any emulator-related articles to write something. Islandking2000 (talk) 07:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Islandking2000:There exists List of video game console emulators if you are worried about "staying hidden". Lists don't necessarily have such high criteria of notability for their entries, meaning that Ryujinx can definitely be listed there (and already is.) That list also may have potential for expansion of short blurbs about the individual entries. It's not like it will have zero visibility whatsoever, it's just not notable enough for a standalone article. While it would be great to flick a magic wand and get 3 people in media to write about emulators, it's kind of not very common for emulators that are "in development" and there's not much Wikipedia can do about that. The policies cannot really "get flexible" as it's a sitewide rule that applies to everything._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The thing about votestacking is that it doesn't really do much because arguments are decided by policy (see WP:NOTAVOTE). So while it can short circuit the system for a while, it doesn't suddenly make a page impossible to be deleted at another time, especially if it's not improved after the first AfD._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm: I bet you are not familiar with gaming emulation environment recent years? It changed from "flick a magic wand" to be nearly impossible for media to dedicate sources to publish emulator articles about the current selling consoles, as I mentioned several times before, and you also agreed that, Yuzu and Citra didn't have significant sources coverage to be granted existence here either, and yet they exist for, two years, and four years respectively, and see no sign of deletion or whatever. That's IS the flexibility Wikipedia should give to the all gaming emulators, and that IS the flexibility Ryujinx doesn't have. I wonder, is there any policy here to deal with such unfair treatments?

Your argument of "in development" state is also not valid, while both Yuzu and Ryujinx are at in-development phase because they want to stay low=profile in fear Nintendo wrath (yeah I know you would say otherwise but this is the reality, we're not so naïve to believe Nintendo is willing sit idol) they're both capable of running a number of games. The existence and visibility of Ryujinx in Wikipedia is important it is able to run some games Yuzu couldn't, thus should be documented here because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

Actually, your mentioning of List of video game console emulators page confirmed what I understand about Wikipedia policy - Ryujinx has a place there, but a certain person says otherwise and keeps deleting my edits to that page.Islandking2000 (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Islandking2000: The articles about the other emulators don't remain due to some kind of bias, special treatment or protection. If they were non-notable and stayed there, it's simply because nobody bothered to put them up for deletion. See WP:ARTICLEAGE. As far as your edits being reverted I think that the Engadget link is enough of a non-trivial mention to include it in the list so my opinion is that the editor is wrong on that front. You'll have to either convince him of that or start a larger discussion in WP:VG if that fails._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm: Just asking, if I redirect Ryujinx, will you file a deletion? Islandking2000 (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Islandking2000: I have no problem with it being redirected to the List of video game console emulators, but you might want to make sure it is agreed upon to be there first so you don't end up with a redirect and nothing mentioned in the article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

You incorrectly stated that Ryujinx is in the list of emulators found here: List of video game console emulators. It is not (obviously, since there is no Wiki page and this list is made up exclusively of links to Wiki pages). Currently Ryujinx has several major features in its emulator that its competitor does not have. It also has a current and vastly more expansive compatibility list, and a Discord server with 18,000 users. As Ryujinx development has already surpassed some Wikipedia-published emulators in its feature set and respective game compatibility, tell me this: if Ryujinx continues development over the next several years and has even more emulation-centric notability references (the people who actively follow and are knowledgeable about such subjects) BUT fails to secure an article written about it by a "trustworthy source" (i.e. PC Mag and Gizmodo, apparently) are you saying it still would not qualify?FrankOlney (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@FrankOlney: Not incorrect. It was removed by another editor just now. Please do not assume bad faith, especially not checking the edit summary beforehand. In any event, it doesn't matter how many mentions it gets in the emulation community, it would need to be written of in your typical sources with editorial oversight before it could be recognized as notable on Wikipedia. Notability criteria does not equal sheer popularity, usefulness, etc._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but "notability" is way too subjective at this point. Who even determines what "your typical sources" are? When does a source go from not being "your typical sources" to joining those ranks? This gives way too much power to established publications who may or may not be completely uninformed on a particular topic such as emulation. What you've suggested is that it wouldn't matter if the Wall Street Journal wrote that Ryujinx was a mediocre Sony PS4 emulator and got all the other facts wrong as well; just so long as the name is mentioned in multiple paragraphs in a 'major publication' (again, who determines what that is?), you can check the "notability" box. Gimme a break.FrankOlney (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@FrankOlney: It's not subjective, it's generally determined by whether they can be proven to have editorial oversight. It's definitely possible they can be "uninformed" as to niche topics but one would assume that at the very least they would take time to get facts straight, and if something is discussed in several articles the facts can be cross-checked. That also doesn't preclude the use of sources straight from the creators of the emulator but only if notability is proven._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm: Thanks for the explanation. Using your criteria, here is proof Hothardware has editorial oversight:Hothardware. They write about Ryujinx here. Here is proof that Wccftech has editorial oversight: Wccftech. They (four separate authors there) write about Ryujinx here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Here is proof that Forbes.com has editorial oversight: Forbes. Forbes wrote a 4+ paragraph article specifically about the two Switch emulators, Ryujinx and yuzu (focusing more on Ryujinx) here. Here is proof that DSOGaming has editorial oversight: DSOGaming. They write about Ryujinx here, here, here, here, and many other articles if one cares to look. Here is proof that Redmondpie has editorial oversight: Redmondpie. They write about Ryujinx here. Oh and here are a couple more. Here is proof that Windowsreport has editorial oversight: Windowsreport. They write about Ryujinx here. Here is proof that GamingInstincts has editorial oversight: GamingInstincts. They write about Ryujinx here. How about now? FrankOlney (talk) 10:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@FrankOlney: I'm just going to point you to WP:VG/S which has a listing of both reliable and unreliable sources, and, helpfully, the discussions that were underwent to decide either way. Suffice it to say, just because something has an about us page doesn't automatically mean people have decided it's trustworthy and reliable. For example, for Forbes articles, there are Contributor articles and then there are Staff articles. It's not like people haven't already tried to look for sources on this and come up wanting, so you don't need to WP:BOMBARD this page with links. In some of them it's the content, rather than the site, that is the issue. For example, WindowsReport just has a guide to using the emulator, not substantive coverage of the emulator itself. So my opinion remains unchanged that there are too few, reliable, significant sources as of now._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm: Then why bother saying it's generally about editorial oversight? I just listed seven separate websites, all with publicly named editorial staff, that write about Ryujinx. You chose one article to criticize regarding the fact that the article is more about how to emulate a game than about the emulator itself (even though it's obvious it's only possible BECAUSE of this emulator). Fine. How about the other six? This is an extremely frustrating experience unless you've got the NY Times writing about you. I'm about to just call it quits, seeing as you and apparently the other staff will always find a reason to deny the article, even though it meets or exceeds the same criteria provided on most of the emulators listed on the list of emulators page mentioned earlier in this thread. FrankOlney (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@FrankOlney: I'm not going to go through them one by one, because you'll probably just counter with why I'm wrong. The fact is that you are approaching this as a sort of inquisition. I'm not someone who hates video games being paid to be here, but a video game lover who volunteered here for free. People just want there to be a high bar for article content and quality, and looking for any old mention of something on the internet is not how it is done, unfortunately. One of the main problems is that a lot of the content you brought up is still not very substantial, just a paragraph here and there._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm: If only your same level of passion and earnest desire for what's right and good had been applied to every other emulator on Wikipedia. It's as I said earlier: this article approval process is way too subjective. Supposedly an article needs to be 4+ paragraphs from a proven reliable source (which is "SIGNIFICANT", whatever that means and still hasn't been explained) but regardless there's numerous examples of that cited above, which you mentioned you didn't look at all because you knew you would already veto it I guess. You win...I'm over it. FrankOlney (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC) Also, congrats. You put a subject that has numerous articles written about it from 7+ editorialized sources on the same level as something being mentioned in passing on a reddit post. You truly are the hero of the video gaming community. FrankOlney (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@FrankOlney: If you think I am so extremely and drastically wrong, I implore you to get a second opinion. The draft was also rejected by User:Jovanmilic97 for the exact same reason. Clearly I am not alone in my opinions. It is unfortunate that you think it is totally arbitrary, but I don't have that same opinion._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm: I feel like a broken record by now, but I'll say it once more in the hopes that it gets through this time. The approval process is too subjective. I'm sure there are others that share your viewpoint. I'm also sure there are others that don't, otherwise there wouldn't be a list of emulators on Wikipedia. Try applying the same criteria used to dismiss the Ryujinx article to the rest of the emulators in the list and see how many pass. We'd end up with a pretty short list of maybe 2 or 3 emulators. That's what's best for everyone?FrankOlney (talk) 12:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@FrankOlney: We are talking about WP:GNG here, so there is not really such a thing as a special exemption to one of the most basic policies of the encyclopedia. I think the best you could do is try to email a bunch of gaming sites that would normally cover that kind of thing and hope they do, as there is not a ton of latitude on this end. Some of the emulator articles are in a poor state though, so I might go and see about improving one to show what a notable one would look like._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, I am not talking about being in the list but having a standalone article. List membership has a lot lower bar to entry and I'm sure it can be listed there._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Zxcvbnm! User:Islandking2000 and I have also been discussing the issue of Ryujinx and List of video game console emulators on my Talk page for a couple days now. You mentioned here that it would be fine to include it, but we've been removing non-notable mentions from that list articles for years now, going back to 2015 or so. It was protected in 2017 for "Persistent spamming: addition of non-notable entries" and editors routinely remove red-linked subjects. I do think there's precedent for allowing subjects that meet GNG but don't have articles, although I don't think that's the case with Ryujinx. Anyways, I wanted to let you know about the multiple threads about this. If you think it's worth bringing this to WT:VG for a larger discussion, that's always an option. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Woodroar, there's no need for a large scale discussion, all I ask is to mention Ryujinx in the list page to increase its visibility. Ryujinx is a working simulator, it's certainly not spam like PCSX4 which is actually documented in the list page. If you are going to set rules so strict about notability, then you should remove noting about Yuzu and Citra in the list because they don't pass notability tests either, despite they have dedicated pages, which don't qualify reliability standard, and then file your deletion notes on their pages, instead of focusing on reverting Ryujinx edits.

And there is Xenia(360 emulator) in the list, which doesn't even have Wikipedia page, and where is the notability source to back it up to stay in the page for so long. So you did't notice it, just like how you miss Orbital(PSV emulator) until I pointed it out and you thanked me for it? Your arguments really forced me to check those names in the list page which I don't want nor intend to. Islandking2000 (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit: I added Xenia noting back with PC Gamer source in the following five pages, 1 2 3 4 5 Islandking2000 (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory or a promotional venue. Listing something 'to increase its visibility' is not something we do here. - MrOllie (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Big Bash Boom

Hello, Zxcvbnm, this is Wellthisisthereaper here.

Thanks for moving Big Bash Boom into the article space. Can you give me advice on expanding the Gameplay section?

Cheers, Wellthisistherepaer (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Wellthisistherepaer: Try looking at other VG articles for guidance. Basically you will need to paraphrase the gameplay pulling from the existing reviews of the game and citing them (since they are already cited in the article you can just point to that reference as necessary)._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm: Ok, thanks! _{WellThisIsTheReaper (TALK)}