User talk:Zxcvbnm/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Draft:Dragon Quest XII

Hi! I've expanded Draft:Dragon Quest XII. Could you review the draft again? Thanks. --Some Umberlla Man (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Runefactorylogo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Runefactorylogo.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) 17:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

"Malphite" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Malphite. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 12#Malphite until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your move request regarding meme stock. The issue was in the back of my mind. JBchrch talk 15:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

About Draft:Ditto (Pokémon)

I am confused as to why my draft was declined, as there are several, reliable sources within the article. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

It contains reliable sources, but the coverage is not WP:SIGCOV. If the sole conclusion one can draw from a source is that the Pokemon is "totally forgettable", it's probably not a significant example. And with many of the ones that actually describe the Pokemon being WP:PRIMARY, I can't see a clear example of notability demonstrated. There has also been a consensus to not put a massive amount of weight on "gameguidey" Kotaku articles. Overall, I am unconvinced there is WP:SIGCOV here. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I am seriously having a hard time seeing how an article with https://www.cbr.com/pokemon-ditto-can-be-anything/, https://www.polygon.com/2019/5/10/18564691/ditto-detective-pikachu-fight-scene, and https://kotaku.com/pokemon-go-players-are-on-a-desperate-quest-to-find-dit-1784393683 does not have significant coverage. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The CBR article is clearly not a serious examination of Ditto. Making speculation like "someone could use a Ditto to turn into a gun and use it to kill, and the weapon would never be identified" goes into the realm of fanfiction, as Nintendo would obviously never explore those implications. It's an example of fan "fluff" that shouldn't be taken seriously. And the Kotaku one is fairly heavily about a rumor. The one about Ditto in Detective Pikachu could qualify, but that's only one source and not technically about Ditto in general. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

All three of those sources are completely valid. Why does being a serious examination of the character matter? The Kotaku source is about the fanbase of Pokémon Go speculating on how Ditto will be added to the game, and is treated as such. If Ash's Pikachu could be mentioned on Pikachu, why can a specific Ditto not be mentioned on Draft:Ditto (Pokémon)? (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

If something is not a serious examination of a character, it fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, specifically the criterion where one must prove that fictional content is significant and influential in some manner. A source discussing the fridge logic implications of Ditto becoming a gun is not demonstrating real-world significance of the character. Do I think such a thing could be possible? Sure, I could picture an article talking about the game-design implications of Ditto being able to give birth to any Pokemon and showing its significance in affecting the games at large. But said articles do not appear to exist, at least demonstrated here. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Endorsing the decline. -- ferret (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Crazy Taxi: Fare Wars

The article Crazy Taxi: Fare Wars you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Crazy Taxi: Fare Wars for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of IceWelder -- IceWelder (talk) 14:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Citation Count

Hi Zxcvbnm, you've recently declined a draft that I have submitted called Draft:Pavlov VR, and you left a comment at the bottom saying that I need quite a few citations for it to be accepted. I wanted to know how many citations would be enough to be a "significant" amount. Thanks Rzzor (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Rebel Inc. (video game)

Hello, Zxcvbnm,

Typically, admins patrolling CSD categories like to do the move/delete edit in one step themselves and this is standard with moving pages out of Draft space but you have written that you would prefer to do the move yourself? You can get the draft all ready to go or clean it up after the move. I am not familiar with the script that you are using that you say requires you do the move yourself.

I'm just giving you a head's up that you might be waiting a while for an admin to take action on your request because it isn't the typical one we see. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: Hi, it is part of WP:AFC. When admins move a page it is harder to clean it up and notify the submitter the article has been accepted. Hopefully there can be a proper G6 template made at some point notifying admins that it is a "delete only" request and the page should not be moved, since the draft needs to be approved by an AfC volunteer who aren't all allowed to have pagemover privileges. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Deleted. -- ferret (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ferret: Thanks, that made me able to perform the necessary approval. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Request on 08:42:54, 8 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Daintydrusilla

• Daintydrusilla (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Witch Beam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! First, thanks for your feedback RE: "A lot of this is pointing to notability for the studio's games but not the studio themselves." I tried to expand a bit on the games, however some of the references are articles that discuss both the new game and the studio. I went ahead and removed a few references. Does this help? Is there a specific section that you still find fault with? Thank you!!

Daintydrusilla (talk) 08:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Daintydrusilla: When there is a game studio article made, often people run afoul of WP:NOTINHERITED in assuming the game makes the developers a notable business. The studio as a business would have to be independently notable of the game itself. And this also does not include interviews, which come directly from members of the business, or stuff that talks about the game from a development standpoint, which is better off in the game's development section. When counting out the interviews, I don't see the substantive content here about the studio. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Zxcvbnm. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Request on 16:27:03, 13 December 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Hurra04

• Hurra04 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Cromerty York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hurra04 (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I based the article on other voiceover actor articles, for example , which has only one reference and reads like a CV. I understand you would prefer me to backup each claim with a newspaper/online article rather than an IMDB entry. A lot of the existing voiceover actor pages, however, have very little supporting info in them, so I am wondering about consistency. Apart from each sentence referring back to an article (in the example above, the author just kept referring to the one newspaper article), what else can I link to as proof? Youtube videos? For example, I might not be allowed, legally, to link to the Rolex advert she voiced, for NDA reasons, and because it might not be available anywhere on the internet. How can I get around that? (thank you)Hurra04 (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Hurra04: Hi, whether another article is referenced or not has no bearing on whether your article is notable. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Those articles you mentioned will most likely get deleted in the future. It is common for actors to treat Wikipedia as a promotional tool and just as common for said articles to be removed.

Plain and simply, there has to be at least a few journalists who have mentioned the subject of the article and written indepth about her. There is a single journalistic source there, which is a start, but it is not enough to prove notability. If at some point in the future more journalists write articles about her, then there will definitely be a case for the article to exist. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention in helping me here. I appreciate your comments and the best thing to do is to delete this page please, and I will try and do more research before re-submitting.Hurra04 (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

References

When you have time

Could you help with the fiction-related backlogs, deletion sorting, and like? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Your treatment of newcomers

When I first started off on Wikipedia, I made an article named Fallout 4: Wasteland Workshop and you tagged it with a 4 problem banner:

• This article includes a list of general references, but it remains largely unverified because it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. (October 2021)
• The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. (October 2021)
• This article needs additional citations for verification. (October 2021)
• This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. (October 2021)

Biting a newcomer, despite the fact that Special:NewPages says right at the top specifically not to do exactly that, and a few edits were made stating in the edit summary: "Poorly Written" "Subpar attempt at an article", then you deleted the article. Why? User:Haleth then talked to you about it on the talk page but you still didn't care. You guys know how to treat newcomers. I was so passionate, and of course you just shot me down with a machine gun. I understand it didn't meet the GNG, But who cares about those, the article (In my opinion) still passes the notability requirements in a realistic, grounded, not shit expectations that I expected Wikipedia to have. In your honor, I made a WP:HUMOR page dedicated to you. User:Lallint/Average new users first article when an Ultimate Vanguard Editor who single-handedly created donald trumps wikipedia page finds the article Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 02:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Lallint: Tagging a page is not "biting a newcomer", just informing you of the policies. If you took it as a personal attack then perhaps you have taken too much ownership of the article. When you are adding to Wikipedia, it is not your personal blog - anyone is entitled to change anything you made for any reason.

I would stop with the personal attacks in edit summaries as they will not get you free reign over Wikipedia, just banned permanently. I think you forfeited your "I'm just a passionate newcomer!" card once you started with that ugly behavior. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Poll at Talk:Cross-country skiing (sport)

Hi Zxcvbnm, Thanks for engaging on the RfC here. You are invited to participate in a ranked-choice poll at Talk:Cross-country skiing (sport)#Ranked-choice poll of alternatives offered. I've entered your first choice, based on your comments to date. You can check that I did so, correctly, and rank other choices, as you see fit. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ravenholm

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ravenholm 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 GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the Assemble Entertainment draft

Hey, I'm the one that wanted to create the Page about Assemble Entertainment. You stated in your answer to my submission that it's prohibited to create an article when I'm paid for it. Later on, you said "not being directly or indirectly compensated for the edits" and I've got a question about this. So, yes, I'm an employee of the company and wanted to create an article about it. Does that mean, that I'm indirectly getting paid to create an article? I just wanted to clarify this before putting the "Paid" template in my user page and doing the next steps.

If you'd say "yes", when I understood it correctly, would be putting the "Paid" thing into my user page, and then re-submit the draft with the hint of the connected contributor at the top? Is this correct?

Cheers, DerSkotschir (talk) 10:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@DerSkotschir: There is the "connected contributor" template if you are NOT being paid but are still professionally connected to the topic. "Connected contributor - paid" is if you were literally hired to create the article or being compensated somehow. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm: Thanks for your answer! I've added this to my talk page, can I just re-submit my draft/edits for submission now? Or is there anything else I have to do before doing so? Thanks in advance! DerSkotschir (talk) 10:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@DerSkotschir: Well there is also of course the WP:NCORP issue. As Wikipedia is not a advertising tool simply existing is not sufficient to justify having an article about your company, the company must also be notable in a way that was picked up by the media at large. Right now, the overwhelming majority of your sources are citing the company's page itself. The Forbes article is an example of secondary coverage, but it's just one. That's also really all I could find that wasn't a press release. There are developer awards won, but that's pretty much just a sentence long mention.

Maybe there are better German sources for the company given its origins. However, I cannot speak German. It's fine to use foreign language sources so if you can find some let me know. Otherwise I am not confident it should have its own article.

On their part, games like Encodya are indubitably notable, so those have potential for article creation even if the overall publisher doesn't. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

RfD closure

Minor point, but I see that you closed Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_February_3#Msi_(computing) with a retarget to MSI#Computing, but my suggestion, apparently supported by the other particpants, was to not target the computing section but just redirect to the top of the page, because not all computing-related entries are in the computing section. Can you amend your close and update the redirect? Cheers, Mdewman6 (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mdewman6: OK, done. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Recent draft decline

You declined my draft Pavlov VR less than 2 hours ago for not having enough reliable citations, although I made sure I checked Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources before I submitted the draft and both GamesRadar and IGN were reliable sources. I can understand that Pavlov was only a mention in a list of games on IGN, but why not GamesRadar. Does it matter if its an announcement? Other than that, I'll try to add as many changes as I can. Rzzor (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rzzor: There are other hurdles besides simply being reliable. What I'm mostly referring to there is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, particularly where it says "Wikipedia treats creative works in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works." With very little discussing the game's reception, influence or significance, it is probably unfitting for an article. I'd say several reviews with actual critical commentary is a fairly low bar for any video game. Right now there's essentially one review and one paragraph of which a sentence is actual critical commentary (of the very light variety, calling it a "must-play"). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh okay, I'll submit it as soon as I get a reception page and at least a few reviews. Rzzor (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rzzor: If they do exist (and in reliable sources) then it should be fine, although I didn't manage to find any in a check. This is also basically an announcement post rather than commentary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

So an "announcement" is considered as something that covers only one small topic about the big thing? Rzzor (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rzzor: An announcement would be something that lacks any sort of critical commentary. "Game X is finally here - it might be interesting" is an announcement, while "My review of Game X - a video game masterpiece!" is commentary. The former takes far less time to write than the latter and is far more common, since you're just giving a game a "shout out", and it may even be mostly copied from whatever press release you got in your email. A mention of it is a sign that the journalist thinks it's worth mentioning, yes, but doesn't indicate that the game is influential or significant. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah. Rzzor (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ravenholm

The article Ravenholm you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Ravenholm for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The Walking Zombies 2

Sir, please check and approve my draft if you find it suitable for an article on Wikipedia. Its name is [Walking Zombie 2].Billapartygang123 (talk) 09:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Backlog needs help

Would you mind looking at the older entries in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Fictional_elements? Some are being relisted due to nobody commenting... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I commented on one of them that you made. That said, since Andrew D. has been topic banned, there is not quite as much of a necessity to send everything to AfD lest any bold redirect be reverted. I would try to keep AfDs to a minimum if you could otherwise redirect characters to their parent article for lack of notability, which would also fix the participation issue for minor articles. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, although I meant all of the discussions in general (I try to check that and similar lists once per week...). Anyway, yes, I am trying to do PRODs, as I dislike bold redirects which are IMHO a 'sneaky deletion'. I'd rather propose a redirect in my PROD (if it makes sense, sometimes there is nothing to salvage). Arguably some PRODs result in hard deletion instead of redirect, but that's just the laziness of the deleting admin... sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ravenholm

The article Ravenholm you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ravenholm for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Tia Dalma

Is this even notable to have her own page? Nothing exist on books that talks about her significantly. 122.54.137.65 (talk) 09:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

It is a bit shaky but I can see possible notability for her due to the reception sources analyzing her. Either way I'd recommend against any kind of AfD as she can easily be merged to List of Pirates of the Caribbean characters if people decide she fails GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Pavlov VR

Hello Zxcvbnm, I need help wanting to get this article submitted for Wikipedia. But it's getting declined :( So can you please tell me what I need to do so I can work on it to get this article submitted? - Cheers, OGxSLAY3R aka bingus worshipper — Preceding unsigned comment added by OGxSLAY3R (talk • contribs) 19:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@OGxSLAY3R: Some games are just not acceptable under Wikipedia's rules of WP:GNG at the current time. It keeps getting declined because it has insufficient mentions in what Wikipedia recognizes as reliable sources, a.k.a. the mainstream gaming press. It is highly unlikely that it will be accepted no matter how indepth the article is, so I suggest moving on to something else. It is always possible that in the future it will receive sufficient notability for an article, see WP:TOOSOON. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Alright then :(

I'm currently working on a new article called "Blades of Brim" Which I hope can get accepted.

- OttergamingYT aka bingus worshipper OGxSLAY3R (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@OGxSLAY3R: Generally speaking, the first check for modern games should be Metacritic. Notable games are usually on it, and have at least several reviews from outlets that are listed on WP:VG/S as reliable. If a game isn't on Metacritic, it may still be notable if you can find several significant mentions that are at least somewhat indepth as a review.

Blades of Brim does seem (just barely) notable, with the Gamezebo, Pocket Gamer UK, and 148apps review, the latter is known as kind of "iffy" but does have an editing team and seems to generally be acceptable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I have it drafted but not ready for review yet, as the references I'm trying to add are all blocked, mainly because I'm using my school computer. So if I have time I can upload the references through my phone.

- OGxSLAY3R, bingus worshipper OGxSLAY3R (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Wordle (disambiguation)

The article Wordle (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other 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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:G7

Hello, Zxcvbnm,

I guess we both learned something about tagging pages CSD G7! Sorry for all of the drama of the Deletion review. I definitely won't make this mistake again in the future. But frankly, I had never run into the situation before where a page move created a redirect, then the redirect was turned into an article/content page, and then the page mover returned to request a speedy deletion of the page. But should this occur again, I will untag the page. Stay well! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Feedback before AfC re-submission

Hi there, ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ! Thank you for your feedback on my draft, it was really helpful to me in finding better, more reliable sources (and in trimming down some of the content that, in hindsight, really didn't need to be there). I was wondering if you would be able to give it a quick glance and tell me if there's anything else I should tweak before resubmitting? I've trimmed it significantly as per your suggestion, sought out the recommended sources, and given the citations in general a bit of an overhaul. It's probably painfully obvious that this is my first article, and I do want to improve it to the best of my ability. No worries of course if you're unable/don't have time. Thank you regardless :) – sootsmudge (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@SootSmudge: Seems good enough to publish so I WP:BOLD went and approved it. Still I do have some minor suggestions for further improvement. The word "limited" in the article's reception section is an opinion implying it did not get enough coverage and should be removed or changed to be more objective. Finally, for reception in general, not directly quoting the source is preferred when possible. As a random example, "So-and-so called the game very enjoyable, but did not like its loading times, calling them too long" is better than "So-and-so said: "the game is quite fun, but its loading times are so long it's crazy". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm: Those are, again, very helpful hints, especially regarding quotations. Thank you so much, and for the approval too! – sootsmudge (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@SootSmudge: You are very welcome! Definitely check out the Video Game WikiProject if you are interested in making more articles along these lines, as well as WP:VG/S for what sources are considered reliable and what aren't, since it may not have been obvious where I was pulling that information from. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@SootSmudge: I also wanted to add that, if you are the creator of the image uploaded as the game's box art, you would need to declare it as such by reuploading it using the "Upload your own or a freely licensed file" button in the Image Upload Wizard. If you are not the author then you can leave it as is, since only low res images are allowed if they are under copyright. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

New message from Sjones23

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sakura Wars 2: Thou Shalt Not Die § Title. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rock reptile

The article Rock reptile has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The expression "Rock reptile" doesn't seem to refer to either of the two topics

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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

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

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Names and primary topics

Hi Zxcvbnm, since the issue of small caps was brought up in the move discussion for Dead Space, and its successful outcome shows that there is some support against an unnecessary disambiguation based on the smallcaps argument, I thought I'd ask for your opinion about this one. Not long ago, someone unilaterally moved the page for Fallout Shelter (video_game) into its current title from Fallout Shelter, except that they didn't actually redirect the latter all caps title to the page for fallout shelter. Do refer to the page history. What's your take? Haleth (talk) 10:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@Haleth: My take is that it should be reversed as an undiscussed move. The person who moved it likely was not familiar with WP:DIFFCAPS policy. I will list it now at RM for bringing it back to its initial name it was created under. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@Haleth I saw that move at the time and debated on whether or not to move it back. Strictly by the book, we allow DIFFCAPS as disambiguation. But on the other hand, I think it's a terrible policy that doesn't best serve readers, so I left the move alone. -- ferret (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

For being reasonable on video game-related discussions Merko (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

List of fictional deities (2nd nomination)

An AFD you participated in is now restarted by the same nominator as last time. All past participates are being contacted.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional deities (2nd nomination) Dream Focus 16:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Would you consider becoming a New Page Reviewer?

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. () Hi Zxcvbnm, I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join the new page reviewing team. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; the new page reviewing team needs help from experienced users. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, most pages are easy to review, and habits are quick to develop). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR. If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page or at the reviewer's discussion board. Cheers, and hope to see you around, (t · c) buidhe 17:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Sam Peters

Just canceling the PROD doesn't solve the problem of an unsourced article w/ notability not proven under WP:NVG. You made reference to "the Metacritic test," which I've never heard of. I see a few passing mentions in essays, but no policy page explaining what it is. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@Just Another Cringy Username: Long story short, the game has enough reviews from reliable sources obviously visible on Metacritic to be a notable topic. Again, WP:NEXIST, what determines whether a game is notable is whether sources exist, but not whether they are currently in the article yet. That is known as a "surmountable problem" and does not justify deletion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Do all these games really rate their own individual articles, though? Is there no piece of pop culture too picayune for the inclusionist fanboys? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Its literally based on WP:GNG, a general policy. Being inclusionist or a fanboy has nothing to do with it. If you think Wikipedia in general is too inclusionist, then well... tough break, I guess. But there are still countless games that cannot be included going by this policy, so it's not like anything and everything is allowed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Second try - draft is now recast completely

Hi Zxcvbnm. I'm an experienced editor so I generally don't submit drafts for review, but I was hesitant about my work on Draft:Mark Cheverton, and sure enough, you declined it a year ago. I wasn't surprised; I felt it was borderline.

On your talk page at User talk:Zxcvbnm/Archive 3#Mark Cheverton you suggested that I recast the draft to be about the author's books rather than the author himself. Only just today I finally got around to doing that. You're right, it's a better article.

I have chastised others for unilaterally moving a draft into article space after it was declined (and I have blocked newbies who have done this repeatedly, but they were hell-bent on promoting whatever it is they wrote about). Even though I've rewritten and expanded the draft, I am reluctant to ignore my own advice to others. Would you please let me know if you object to moving this into article space?

Draft:Mark Cheverton is now a redirect to Draft:Gameknight999. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Move Backgammon (1979 video game)

Hi. I see you moved the above-referenced page from Backgammon (video game) to where it presently is. Since this is the only article we have about a video game called "Backgammon" why is it necessary to move it to disambiguate? I'm happy to leave this article where it is so long as there's a policy reason for the move. FOARP (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@FOARP: See Backgammon (1988 video game). I guess it was not added to the DAB page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

OK thanks, makes sense! FOARP (talk) 11:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Sort keys

Hi, while you are nominating categories for renaming e.g. X in fiction to Fiction about X, please would you insert fixed sort keys, so that the sort key X is not lost when X is no longer the first word? E.g. [1] – Fayenatic London 22:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: Oops, my bad! ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Jolt Physics

Hello,

Thank you for reviewing my draft! First of all, sorry if I'm reaching out in the wrong way (I'm new to this).

I feel that making Jolt Physics part of the Decima engine is not really appropriate. Even though the library is used by Decima it is completely standalone and not related to it. Also, adding it there would make it impossible to link to it from the Physics engine page.

In the 5 months since it has been released, Jolt Physics has already surpassed the popularity of many of the physics engines that have been in that list for a very long time (using github stars as popularity measure):

• Siconos - https://github.com/siconos/siconos - 120 stars
• Advanced Simulation Library - https://github.com/AvtechScientific/ASL - 176 stars
• Simulation Open Framework Architecture - https://github.com/sofa-framework/sofa - 628 stars
• Newton Game Dynamics - https://github.com/MADEAPPS/newton-dynamics/ - 798 stars
• Project Chrono - https://github.com/projectchrono/chrono - 1.5k stars
• Chipmunk Physics - https://github.com/slembcke/Chipmunk2D - 1.8k stars

These are not hosted on github, so I can't use the same metric:

• ODE - https://bitbucket.org/odedevs/ode/src/master/ - 6 watchers
• Physics Abstraction Layer - https://sourceforge.net/projects/pal/ - 2 reviews
• Tokamak Physics - https://sourceforge.net/projects/tokamakp/ - 3 reviews
• Phyz - https://phyz.ath.cx/ - Only comes as a binary release, I can't find any other external references on the internet to this engine.

That's about half of the physics engines listed.

For reference, this is Jolt Physics: https://github.com/jrouwe/JoltPhysics - 1.9k stars

Would you please reconsider approving?

Sjorrieporrie (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Sjorrieporrie: Github doesn't count towards Wikipedia notability, due to the guideline, WP:USERG. Since things on Github are self-published, they are not reliable sources. If you cannot merge it to the Decima Engine, then perhaps it can be merged to the Forbidden West article instead due to it predominantly being mentioned in the context of its use in that game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Forbidden West is also not the appropriate page for the same reasons. I guess all I can do then is wait for more games to come out using it. Thanks! Sjorrieporrie (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

What you need is in-depth coverage from reliable secondary sources. This is very unlikely to appear. Most game engines are non-notable, let alone most middleware like physics engines. Most of the ones listed at physics engine look like they should probably take a trip to AFD. -- ferret (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Uncharted: Legacy of Thieves Collection

I came here chasing down this draft. I meant to start a page on this remaster myself, but saw there was a declined draft already. I didn't work on it, so I have no stake, but I feel it could be a worthy page on its own. Note that the previous remaster bundle in the franchise has an extensive article. It includes detailed info about its development and reception.

It's also a very notable franchise with a recent live-action adaptation, and IMO the article is a decent start. If it existed in mainspace, maybe it would grow to include some behind the scenes info and more.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Antrikshy (talk • contribs)

@Antrikshy: It is honestly dubious whether the Nathan Drake Collection article would survive a merge discussion or AfD. Based on what I have seen on other users' stances on bundles/collections/etc., it needs some sort of substantial difference from the originals. Legacy of Thieves Collection is exactly the same besides slight performance improvements and can easily be added to the series article or the individual games' articles. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shovel Knight Pocket Dungeon has been accepted

Shovel Knight Pocket Dungeon, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Yorite Konoha wa Kurenai ni

I noted that you just declined this draft by the reason " A single review and some sales info is not enough to pass WP:GNG". But the topic have significant coverage in the magazine and news websites such as Dengeki Hime, BugBug, TG Smart etc. Are there any requirement that the subject should have multiple review for the notability?--So47009 (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@So47009: See WP:NOTPLOT - "Wikipedia treats creative works in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works." There is almost nothing in the vein of "reception" or "significance", with the description of the one review there being scant at best. Even if there are multiple sources discussing the plot of a work, not explaining why it matters in a general sense violates the general WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE policy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

We don't do any Summary-only descriptions in the article, we mention its development process, release dates, sales ranking. For Summary-only descriptions, My understanding is the editor just mention the plot in the article and do nothing. So47009 (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@So47009: Regardless, plot and development sans reception or influence is still violating WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. I've seen this be a problem for many eroge games since mainstream sources don't review them. I won't be enraged if you ignore me and resubmit the draft, but as an experienced editor, I believe others will also reject it or at least the article will not pass muster if it is ever nominated for WP:AFD unless the reception can somehow be improved. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I just add a pre-sale reaction from TG smart. For Eroge, another problem is most of the secondary sources are print magazines even in the 2010s. It may be hard for someone to find those magazines due to the paywall and physical barrier--So47009 (talk) 12:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC).

Draft:Aviation accidents and incidents in fiction

Per your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of aviation accidents and incidents in fiction, I would like to gauge your thoughts on the current state of Draft:Aviation accidents and incidents in fiction. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Thanks for informing me of my mistake concerning the Souls series category pages! Joyce-stick (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you really believe this?

If you sincerely believe this, then I would love to see some data on this, because I don't at all think that's what happens, but recognize that my impression is just as unsupported as your assertion and reality may be different than what either of us think. I think this would be an interesting question to research... but I have neither the time nor the tools to see what happens to TNT'ed articles. Do you know anyone who might want to take this on as a research project? Jclemens (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I sincerely believe that leaving a WP:ALLPLOT or fancruft article will prevent people from bothering to improve it. Either they think that sort of material is tacitly tolerated by Wikipedia and doesn't need fixing, or the sheer amount of minutia is too intimidating to tackle. See also WP:REDLINK. Either way, I don't think it needs researching, because regardless of my thoughts on whether it leads to improvement, such articles should still be deleted simply on the basis of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I didn't post to start a debate on deletion philosophy, but see if you had any actual data. I don't mind that you don't have any, as I clearly do not either, but it's a bit of a disappointment that you don't see that having some actual data would improve the discourse. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Then, unfortunately, no. It's solely based on my experience as a long-time editor, and I accept it may be incorrect. I feel like it may be very difficult to prove this one way or the other. Most articles where TNT is an argument and yet survive an AfD, tend to be rewritten BECAUSE of the AfD and not because they were kept and someone later discovered them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Board of Trustees election

Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 04:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

MADiSON

Hello! I saw that you unedited the title of the video game MADiSON and put it back in lowercase. I read the ALL CAPS article, but in this case it is not all caps as there is a letter that is not capitalized. It is a registered trademark. Everywhere the game is known as MADiSON (Steam, IGN, GOG, Playstation, Xbox, Nintendo). Even in its wikipedias of France and Spain it is accepted as 'MADiSON'. It is a case more similar to the 'iPhone' and 'iOS', which are an exception to the wikipedia rules as it is a brand and therefore begins with a lowercase letter. Another similar example is in GOG wikipedia, whose title is 'GOG.com', combining uppercase with lowercase. Another example that does not necessarily respect the rules of wikipedia is 'LinkedIn', which has the i in capital letters in the title, instead of being written only with the first initial L. It is not an acronym but being the name of an already established brand, it is respected. If the title is placed as 'Madison', it loses the reason and logic of the title. I wanted to create the page in English since it is being one of the most famous horror games of the year but I couldn't, although it already has official wikipedias in French and Spanish Nicolasferraro (talk) 08:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Nicolasferraro: "OS" stands for "operating system". "GOG" stands for "Good Old Games". Those are acronyms and would therefore be capitalized under the ALLCAPS policy. LinkedIn is CamelCase and would also fall under a different policy. The point is that when there are multiple capital letters in a row and they only have a purely stylistic function, they are not allowed in a title of an article. I don't know about the other language Wikipedias, but either they don't have the same policy, or they just weren't noticed and moved yet because there are fewer editors there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh I see. Thank you very much for taking the time to explain me!

If it's not a bother, can I ask you about the request that are made there?

Will someone eventually review it and assess if the game meets the requirements to have its own page?

I wanted to create the article in English, taking advantage of the fact that it is already in French and Spanish, but it does not allow me because I am new. I'm surprised that no one has created it since it's a game that came out countless times on IGN, on official Playstation channels, Eurogamer and a lot more official media that reviewed it. Nicolasferraro (talk) 10:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Nicolasferraro: Generally, it is by far the better option to create the page yourself - there is an Articles for Creation process you can use if you are unsure whether the ensuing article will pass Wikipedia standards, or if you are a new user on English Wiki (which you are). A good rule of thumb is to look at other articles for guidance on how it should be formatted and make sure all sources are reliable mainstream sources. Putting it in "Requests" tends to be a last resort if you are unwilling or unable to make it, and has a low chance of resulting in an article, though still possible. But since it is entirely volunteer, people are not obligated to make the Requests into pages. More likely, if someone has not bothered making it after numerous years it will just be removed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I have corrected the things you marked me and added more reliable sources as references. If you have a moment and can see if the draft is better now I would appreciate it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:MADiSON Nicolasferraro (talk) 14:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@Nicolasferraro: Some issues I can see are - the "plot" section should be written in a more objective way. The way it is written sounds like an advertisement. The article needs a "reception" section. Check other video game articles for guidance on how to format it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@Nicolasferraro: Also, if you are one of the game's developers or are working for them, you are required to disclose this on your userpage. See WP:PAID. This does not mean you cannot make the article as long as it is approved by AfC, and the game is notable enough that if the article is free from puffery and well-written, it can be approved, but you must show you are connected, period. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@Nicolasferraro: Additionally, the image was not uploaded to the right place. I have added a tag to the page on Commons showing what you need to do if you are the copyright holder. If you are not, it should be removed from Commons and reuploaded under fair use at low resolution. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for answering! First of all, no, I'm not from the development team nor do I work for them. They are simply two guys from my country, and this really is the first great Argentine game with a global impact and I think they deserve to have their wikipedia page.

I had taken the plot from its official page, but I've already changed it, I'm going to check everything else you told me to try to put everything correctly. Nicolasferraro (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

There (I think) I made the changes you had marked for me.

I don't know if anything else needs to be corrected. Nicolasferraro (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@Nicolasferraro: A definite improvement, but the reception needs to be paraphrased, not directly block quoted. While it is fine to use some quotes, using direct quotes entirely can be called copyright infringement of the publication in question.

As an example, the sentence "MADiSON is consistent, and that’s one of the key factors in a great horror game. A lot of games tend to struggle with a sluggish second act after an incredible opener or fall off in the final act, but that does not happen here." could instead be paraphrased as "___ of Shacknews stated that MADiSON was consistent, unlike other horror games, whose quality diminished in their latter half". As you can see, it's restating the conclusion without directly quoting any of it.

Finally, I also think the "top 20 releases" part would go at the end of the Development section, maybe as part of the same paragraph saying its release date. Reception is purely for critical reception as far as I am aware. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Nicolasferraro: Also, since if you are not part of the developers you definitely do not have copyright to the uploaded image, what you should do is upload a totally new cover image and select "Upload a non-free file". The image should preferably be a PNG file that is as close to 100,000 pixels when height and width are multiplied without going over, and specify it is a video game cover art using the wizard. You can just leave the other image unused; it will be deleted after about a week. If you don't know how to use an image editor you can just upload a PNG image of any size, a bot will resize it anyway. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems that someone else already accepted the creation of the article. It would not have been possible without your willingness to share knowledge and guide me during the process. Thank you very much for your infinite patience! Nicolasferraro (talk) 11:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Nicolasferraro: You are welcome. I ended up doing some copyediting regardless. I had to remove the part about user scores, as they are inadmissible on Wikipedia per WP:USERG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Further information on the decline of the Bidoof Draft

Hello! As you have declined the Draft:Bidoof article, I would like to request further elaboration on how Bidoof does not meet notability guidelines. While the "Reception" is primarily based on articles more geeky in tone, that is simply a consequence of the Pokémon's meme status.

My personal understanding is that shorts such as Bidoof's Big Stand, as well as events like Bidoof Day, which both received significant news coverage, and with the case of Bidoof's Big Stand, significant, genuine, reviews, would give the Pokémon itself enough notability to warrant an article with all of these events and appearances in it. DecafPotato (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@DecafPotato: If you are confused, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bidoof which resulted in the original article's redirection for non-notability. The same issue stands today; nothing has changed. Even trusted admins in this discussion voted to redirect and creation protect the page, because its sources are so weak. To quote Masem in the AfD: "Honestly, the reception section is showing literally pulling every possible strand of weak, non-significant coverage (two or three sentence mentions from articles on broader topics) to try to make the character seem notable." This is what I believe as well, having a great deal of experience dealing with fictional topics. Generally speaking it is pretty difficult to find significant indepth coverage on individual Pokemon; despite being characters, they do not have motivations or character traits to analyze. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

So, If I am reading correctly, the notability issue stems from a lack of sources giving reviews of the Pokémon itself, and nothing else. I do agree with the statement of the Reception feeling like it is grasping at straws at times, which I will aim to fix, but may require simply waiting until more sources arise. But, my question with this, is that, other Pokémon, including ones notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article, such as Greninja, have reception like "Michael Derosa of Screen Rant called Greninja was one of the most popular Pokémon from the entire series", which seems even more pointless than reception shown in the draft (not trying to excuse the bad reception in the Bidoof draft, or pull a "but they did it first").

Additionally, the initial AfD debate happened prior to the release of Bidoof's Big Stand, which, as shown in the article, did receive reviews and news coverage to the extent that notability guidelines require. I do believe that this made Bidoof more notable, but I do understand that the current article may fail to capture that notability. Not, to, ironically, pull another Pokémon test, but stuff like Pokémon: The Arceus Chronicles has received less coverage than Bidoof's Big Stand, and is captured within articles like Pokémon Ultimate Journeys: The Series, which Bidoof's Big Stand is not (obviously the fact that it isn't referenced anywhere else doesn't magically provide notability out of thin air).

TL;DR: It seems notability issues are only from no direct reviews of the Pokémon. I agree the Reception section is very lacking, but other articles lacking good reception does not provide an argument for no notability when the reception is the only issue. The AfD discussion was prior to Bidoof's Big Stand, which received broad coverage and reviews, which I believe at least required a reassessment of notability.

I will continue to occasionally work on the draft in hopes of getting it eventually approved, so I was just asking for specific problems in notability to be fixed, since I believe the subject is notable enough, even though I may have done a poor job presenting that. Thank you for your time. DecafPotato (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@DecafPotato: Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS when comparing other pages to Bidoof. Those other pages are, more than likely, not notable either, and would be merged or deleted if sent to AfD.

If there is coverage of Bidoof's Big Stand, this does not mean that the character portrayed within it is notable. Notability is not inherited from a work of media, and instead revolves around independent coverage of the character themselves. This is a tricky situation when it comes to Big Stand, since the Bidoof in that animation is in itself a separate character than Bidoof the species. Ultimately, there is coverage about the animation and the species, but those cannot be combined, and there is not enough of either alone for notability for either topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Are we really discussing Bidoof again? Considering the draft author seems to openly admit that the AFD is correct and there's no direct reception of the Pokemon, where else is there to go? AFD the rest. -- ferret (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

"Considering the draft author seems to openly admit that the AFD is correct"

I believed it was correct at the time, consensus can change.

"there's no direct reception of the Pokemon"

There is limited direct reception, as with many characters. Lack of reception does not necessarily mean lack of notability, they just tend to be correlated. The issue with Bidoof's notability, as I understand it, is not the lack of reception, the lack of reception is caused by limited notability aside from internet memes, which makes many reviews border on sarcasm, and outside of Bidoof's Big Stand, which, as discussed in other parts of this thread, is a strange case. DecafPotato (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I was definitely cautious of "What about article x", my point being that Greninja, for example, is notable (and for the record, was nominated for a redirect), but the reception is lacking.

I think how Big Stand contributes to the notability of the Pokémon itself is something that requires a larger discussion, as the Pokémon is not only prominently featured and undoubtedly the protagonist, and is put in the branding and is the center of the marketing, but as you said, it is separate from the Pokémon itself.

My main goal was for Bidoof's notability to be reevaluated after the release of Bidoof's Big Stand, and I believe that together they have enough notability, so the challenge comes in reasonably combining them, because, ultimately, you have more power over this situation than I do, and if you say they aren't notable on their own, I kind of have no choice but to respect that, even if I don't agree. So I guess I'll just let it sit in the back of my head for a bit and try to address some of the issues. DecafPotato (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Your argument is that Big Stand is the "tipping point" for notability. I simply do not agree. Not only is it a very short film, but the film got largely trivial coverage. In a world where entire movies based around a certain Pokemon species - Mewtwo, Lugia, etc. is not uncommon, it's a fairly small mention. I don't think the topic can be forced to be notable no matter how much one tries, and with the setting of the Pokemon games moving to a new region, it's fairly unlikely it will happen in the future after its meme day in the sun. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it is notable if combined with Big Stand, there are many examples of the notability guidelines being met even without a huge film, again, with stuff like Pokémon: Hisuian Snow or Pokémon: The Arceus Chronicles. And I don't necessarily understand what you mean by "trivial" coverage, nearly every major gaming outlet, and some film outlets, covered the short.

The problem lies in that notability is inherently subjective. Despite attempts to create guidelines, a subject's notability is still determined by consensus, with the guidelines simply being guidelines. I created the Draft to reassess Bidoof's notability, while also being simply done for fun.

So I think my path forward, if I want this draft to be accepted, is to… well, wait. Bidoof was last assessed for notability in July 2021, and now September 2022. If the pattern continues, which there is no guarantee, though it is likely, maybe after another few shorts or stuff like Bidoof Day, significant appearances, and dedicated reviews, it'll hit notability guidelines. So I guess I'll see you when/if I return to this upon further notability. DecafPotato (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The difference between trivial and indepth is: is the coverage "hey, look at this thing! It may be neat, who knows!" or "I watched this thing, here are my opinions over numerous pages as to how good it is". The latter indicates that journalists took a lot more of their valuable time to assess the work of media and indicates it is somehow important.

It's fair if you want to wait. In my opinion, it may never be notable. No amount of trivial coverage can add up to significant coverage. But there is always some slim possibility it may happen if Nintendo decides to elevate Bidoof in a large way - though from what I can tell, they've probably moved on. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)