User talk:Zxcvbnm/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Nomination of Megaton (Fallout 3) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Megaton (Fallout 3) 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/Megaton (Fallout 3) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

--Bumpf said this! ^{ooh clicky clicky!} [insert witty meta-text on wiki-sigs here] 15:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

"Farming sim" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Farming sim has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 5 § Farming sim until a consensus is reached. JuniperChill (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lloyd Garmadon (2nd nomination)

I don't wanna talk to the admin's talk page. But, I felt like this AfD closure was kinda awful. Wdyt personally? GreenishPickle! (🔔) 00:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@Greenish Pickle!: I think the point was that there is no consensus to delete outright. You are free to start a merge discussion right away if you think it ought to be merged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the result should be no consensus or at least be relisted. But, it doesn't matter anyway. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 06:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

In AfD, a "no consensus" is only when there is not agreement whether to delete the article. Here there was agreement it should be kept, but some people argued for a merge. That's what I think the reasoning was here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Metallic Child and unreliable sources

You said that some sources are unreliable. But which sources are unreliable and why are they unreliable? EternalNub (talk) 05:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@EternalNub: See WP:VG/S. The community has sorted most sites into reliable and unreliable, based on the editorial staff and whether one can assume they are factual and trustworthy. In this case, both Nintendo Life and TouchArcade are reliable, which is why they have a listing in the review box, though that's still not quite enough to pass notability criteria. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I added two more sources which are in spanish. One is MeriStation. EternalNub (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@EternalNub:I am unsure of "No Somos Ñoños" as it seems very much like a standard blog, but Meristation is reliable. Remove or fix anything that depends on The Indie Game Website or Hey Poor Player and we should be good.

I'd personally suggest expanding the article a bit more though, based on those 3 reliable sources, as right now it would still be considered Stub-class. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Final Fantasy VI World of Ruin.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Final Fantasy VI World of Ruin.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) 02:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Deathclaw dev info

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPu9K4m4Y-k This just dropped from the guy responsible for the model work in 3 and 4. Dunno if you'll ever be able to revive the subject, but figured at the least you'd appreciate the behind the scenes. Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

It's sick to have a thing like that exist, though unfortunately being a primary source it is totally useless to revive the article. And I did notice this since then, but, well, I think you can tell why I would be hesitant to use that as the basis for any sort of notability consideration. I do think there is a decent chance of some Deathclaw discourse when Season 2 of the show comes out, since the creators alluded to the fact that Deathclaws will be the main focus of at least something, and they avoided showing them to make it a major reveal for non-Fallout players. If there is any chance for the article to be notable it will be then, IMO. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Simulated reality (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Simulated reality (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Reason?

Hey Zxcvbnm, you recently edited Back to Bed, in which you removed the Cubed3 ratings, which I understand, you also removed the Nintendo Switch section, which I also understand as it only had its ratings in Metacritic and GameSpace.com which is an unknown source. I just don't understand why you left Gaming Age incomplete. You removed its ratings and its mention in the section, but you didn't remove it from the template, leaving a row full of 'N/A's, could you reply and let me know whether you'll do it or I can do it myself. Sincerely, MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 08:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@MKsLifeInANutshell: It was an accident, I meant to remove Gaming Age entirely as a not fully reliable source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Qwerty

Why am I now realizing your name is the bottom of the qwerty keyboard haha MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you help rename the categories that I marked for speedy renaming?

Hi Zxcvbmm. I have moved the category Video game types to the section denoting the primary classifications for video games (in the Video games category) as a whole, therefore it should be renamed to Video games by type. I also marked the category called Microphone-controlled computer games for speedy renaming to the more appropriate name. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Re: Cait Sith move

Left a shout on there, but I agree with the move. However, the more I dig into things, I think it may be a better idea to move it to Cait Sith (Final Fantasy VII), because apparently there's another major Cait Sith in the franchise. Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Does the category for games using proced. gen. deserve to stay?

Hi, again. I have listed Category:Video games using procedural generation for deletion because it's not defining and kind of lame as thousands of games (that are not even listed) including hundreds of sandbox, strategy, and city building games all have some sort of randomly-generated maps. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 22:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

"Blagger" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Blagger has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 18 § Blagger until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 11:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Wussuuuup!!!

Howdy Zxcvbnm! Have you noticed something? I recently manually moved all articles and subcategories that were in Category:Video game gameplay to other desirable categories. I did this due to the fact that any gameplay element would also be a video game term, and I want to avoid overcategorization and inconsistency. I hope you agree with this change. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@QuantumFoam66: This would have properly been a matter for CfD merge proposal, not manually doing it yourself, in order to make sure your changes actually stick.

I have no personal issue with it, as I previously attempted to fold the gameplay category into a different one (which, btw, was opposed) but if someone does happen to disagree and decides to reverse your changes, your effort may be wasted. Next time I'd suggest a discussion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girl Next Door (anime)

Hello, Zxcvbnm,

I think this was too soon for a SNOW close. Typical snow closes have 8-12 Keep votes and no Delete votes and this had a fraction of that total. Please do not cut discussions off too short, there is really nothing controversial for letting a discussion run 7 days unless there is a mammoth level of Keep support which wasn't the case here. I'm not saying that I would have closed it differently a week after it was opened, I just know from experience that you don't want to give an editor a reason to bring a closure to Deletion Review. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Understood, I guess I will only do it in extreme circumstances. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Dracthyr for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dracthyr 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/Dracthyr until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 12 § X films -> Films about X

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 12 § X films -> Films about X on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

A concern with AHI-3000

AHI-3000 has recently re-created Category:Comedy video games. I do not think this category should be revived. Comedy is very subjective when it comes to video games.

He has also recently created, Video games by narrative genre, which might need to be merged with Video games by theme, or in perhaps purged by creating a category called video games by topic, which would strictly only contain the video games categories that typically begin with "Video games about", as opposed to "Romance video games", "Western video games" etc QuantumFoam66 (talk) 04:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@QuantumFoam66: Then go talk about it in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion instead of passive-aggressively gossiping about me specifically. You think I didn't notice this? AHI-3000 (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@AHI-3000: Technically the proper place to talk about it would be at YOUR talk page, due to it being an issue with your editing, but you disingenuously delete legitimate concerns before they have run their course and fail to archive discussions, making it impossible to have a serious discussion. Please set up talk page archiving and stop removing things from your page and people will have less of a desire to talk "behind your back", as sending you a message seems to fall upon deaf ears.

@QuantumFoam66: Yes, the recreation should have probably been discussed at WP:VG before happening. There is no page for Comedy video game, only Comedy in video games because there is no such thing as a "comedy video game" genre. The category should not exist. I will go ahead and nominatae it for deletion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

WPVG Announcements

Hey Zxcvbnm. I recently nominated IGN Convention for deletion, but it does not seem to appear in the WPVG Announcements template at WT:VG. Just wanted to know how to make it show up there. MK at your service. 15:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@MKsLifeInANutshell: As far as I know it's auto updated on a delay so you should just wait for it to show up later. AfDs last for at least a week so there's definitely time. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! MK at your service. 16:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Can I edit this rejected Draft?

I think I finally found something that might make Draft:The Henry Stickmin Collection notable for Wikipedia. I'm asking for permission to edit it because it seems to be conclusively rejected.

I found out that TyC Sports (The spanish page for it is better), an argentine sports channel that also covers video games, has covered Henry Stickmin in two articles, and this time they aren't just brief mentions! Obviously TyC Sports alone isn't enough coverage, but we also have the Screen Rant article, so that could make Henry Stickmin notable (according to this category, two reliable in-depth sources are the minimum). Screen Rant also gave Henry Stickmin some decent depth in this one.

Again, just making sure I can edit it, since I'm new to drafts. Bonus Person (talk) 01:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Once Human

Once Human "is currently linked from a large number of articles" / "Please help direct these ambiguous links to articles dealing with the specific meaning intended". Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: Fixed, sorry for the oversight. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

I know we butt heads at AfD a fair bit, but I'd like to give this to you either way. You've been consistently participating in AfDs to an extent that is genuinely impressive, and even if we disagree at times, your contributions to AfD have been highly positive over the past few years. Thank you for all you do there. Happy editing! Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Turn-based video games has been nominated for deletion

Category:Turn-based video games has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Romhacking.net

It is extremely rude to ruin people's hard work and redirect their stubs to other pages just because you don't know enough about a subject to see its relevance. Use the appropriate templates instead of replacing the full contents articles. -- Beqwk (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Beqwk: There is nothing rude about it, as I got consensus to redirect it here. That consensus does not have to include the article creator since you don't own any of your contributions. Please familiarize yourself with notability policy before making pages or they will likely be deleted or redirected in the same way. There's also WP:AFC if you want to avoid situations such as this. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I will also add that with the new sources the article may be safe. But those didn't exist when you first created it. You should endeavor to add such sources when it's created and not expect people to find them for you. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Feedback on drafts

Hey dude! I'm the guy who wrote the Bendy in Nightmare Run article, and i just noticed thst niche titles sre in your area of interest. With Bendy Run being one, i would like to gain feedback on how to make articles on these kinds of niche video game topics since it's usually hard to find media coverage or critic reviews about them. Best regards! OliDaHoli (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@OliDaHoli: I tend to direct people to WP:AKON when people ask "hey, how does it become notable". In some cases the article just will never be notable enough, like many niche topics. It only has 2 full reviews from reliable sources, and the third one hinges on the Common Sense Media review as the others are from unreliable sources. Common Sense Media is very basic, and could fall under trivial coverage. Usually the bar is 3 full reviews to establish notability. That's why I said it's borderline, and you should probably just expand its section in the series article and move on to topics with more coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, i see. Hopefully i have 2 more reviews that may fit the criteria to establish notability. If it is not notable i will expand the series article. Again, best regards! OliDaHoli (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I will make sure to double-check for reliability though. OliDaHoli (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I may have a third one but i am not sure if these sources fit the criteria: TheGWW, NewsReports and Dreager1 (which i do not trust from first looks). So far TheGWW looks the most promising. OliDaHoli (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@OliDaHoli: TheGWW: Doesn't seem reliable. I've literally never seen it used before as a source, and it doesn't list any editors. My guess is that the others are not reliable either. Again, I am speaking from experience that it should probably not be a page. Just "let it go", focus on improving its section in the series article, and move on to a different title that got more coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I did say i will proofcheck every website and submit a final time if one is found to be reliable. Since you didn't use theGWW i think you wouldn't know if it is reliable, which i agree with from first glance it doesn't seem reliable

I will not do that today, i'm no rusher, but this is just being 100% sure before i completely abandon the article.

Sorry if i seem stubborn. OliDaHoli (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Oops think i read that wrong, you've never seen it used as a source. Sorry OliDaHoli (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Warcraft Emberthal.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Warcraft Emberthal.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) 00:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Can I Play That?, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Exposé.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Tables and games reception sections

Please note WP:PROSE this encyclopedia is supposed to be text first, tables are supplementary.

This principle is specifically reiterated in WP:VGREC which explains {{Video game ratings}} "This template is not required. It supplements the reception section; it does not replace it."
Please also note "Every single-site review source should be used within the reception section. The reviews table supports the text. It is not to replicate the function of external review aggregators."

You can add tables if you want but please do not remove article text as you did in your recent edit.(diff) If you want to expand the table make sure to first expand the article text. -- 109.77.197.194 (talk) 04:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are citing VGREC as supporting your point when it says "For example, avoid scores and statistics in prose, which are hard for the reader to parse and often impart little qualitative information. These scores should be limited to the Video game reviews template, if present." It appears to disprove your point rather than prove it... ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't realized the guidelines seem to contradict themselves. The preceding sentence to the one you mentioned even says "Including the number of reviews that are computed to create the review aggregator score can be helpful" because a high Metacritic score based on a small number of reviews is obviously not as significant as a score based on a larger sample of reviews. (I've seen some editors hiding the review number count in a footnote, but that seems like the worst of both worlds, either this information is context worth showing to readers or it isn't). It would seem as if the items higher in the list might take precedence over items lower on the list. In typical Wikipedia fashion the guideline seems to be saying include some detail but not too much detail and we're supposed to guess where the middle is supposed to be. (i.e. don't delete Metacritic from the prose entirely as you did, but probably less of the platform specific detail that I restored.)

Nonetheless WP:PROSE is project wide guideline, and prose is supposed to come first "Articles are intended to consist primarily of prose". -- 109.77.196.205 (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems like you have an issue with the policy, but I am only following it. You should go to WP:VG if you want to argue the policy is wrong, not me as I did not have a hand in writing it. If it were up to me, scores would be usable in prose as I don't think it's "confusing" for a general audience, but as it is, the video game reviews box has to be used if one wants to put scores in an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Notability of Fundamental Paper Education

This is a super random question, but have you heard this... uh, thingamablob known as "Fundamental Paper Education." It is very likely not notable for Wikipedia, neither is the viral video "Basics in Behavior" that started it. It's the same kind of conflict with Battle For Dream Island, one of the most ever declined subjects on Wikipedia. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 03:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I have seen it submitted for AfC a number of times, and I am pretty sure I declined it for non-notability. I know it exists but there is zero sign it's actually notable at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

BLUDGEON

Per your talk page comments at Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire, I figured I'd just ask you this here directly than on the talk page so as to avoid any confusion with my intentions. Though I disagree with your assessment of my actions as BLUDGEONING, I do understand that this may end up being a point of confusion in the future should I keep my current behavior up. As a result, would you be willing to provide advice in terms of my argumentation style in order to improve on this? While you're the only one who's acknowledged it so far, I figure it may be better to just try and nip this in the bud now so as to make sure it doesn't become a problem later. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

From what I've seen, your replies are often incredibly long, sometimes multiple times as long as what you're responding to. This might be not be your intent, but it comes off as trying to force your opinion by arguing the person into capitulation. I wouldn't want to engage, because I'd probably get bombarded with another textual wall, but the sheer size disparity makes my argument seem weak in comparison even if it's more powerful. I tend to avoid replying to most people in nominations I do, unless I feel they have made an abject error I have to correct. Even then, I try to be as brief as possible so it feels like a correction rather than attempting to override their views.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rules lawyer (2nd nomination), a nomination I made that is still going on and you are welcome to contribute to. Right now it's split between Merge and Keep but my responses were rather short and literally only to point out something I believe was incorrect, such as the lack of a policy based reason for keeping.

In your response to Oinkers in the Ruby and Sapphire discussion, I think saying something like "multiple reviewers said the game was too similar to bother buying, so please state the major changes that will merit an article" would be equally as effective in far less text. Though if he does then answer with things that have merit, even that could potentially backfire. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm I tend to give long answers primarily because I wish to address multiple points of a discussion and make sure nothing is misconstrued with my own. I see your point, though, that it seems imposing. I do worry shorter answers may result in ignorance to part of an argument, which may backfire or lead to a more drawn-out discussion, which is primarily why I write longer. Using the current merge discussion as an example, I feel strongly that the plot and gameplay are not large enough to warrant the page split, but I worry that if I make that point shorter, it will lead to confusion as to exactly what I'm arguing. Do you have any advice for how to shorten messages while still making sure I don't cause further confusion in a debate? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I guess you could try to anticipate potential counterarguments and pre-empt them in the nomination rather than having to explain after the fact?

"Oppose because I don't agree it's the same game" is probably the most predictable counterargument there is. The evidence presented to the contrary, "the game has identical plot and gameplay to Ruby and Sapphire", is outright false. The plot is different, and so is the gameplay in some ways. There needed to be a more indepth analysis of the similarities and differences than vague and inaccurate assertions being thrown out to justify a merge, which you had already mocked up, making it feel like you were looking more for a rubber-stamp than consensus. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm Y'know, I somehow hadn't actually considered that this was how my argument was actually coming out. I thought I had covered my points concisely, but looking back, you're definitely right in that I didn't clarify my points well enough. Would you suggest leaving some form of clarifying comment and then stepping back from that discussion to avoid overstepping my stay? In terms of that discussion, at least, I do want to avoid stepping into BLUDGEON territory, so I do want to check with you if you feel that is too much, or if I should just let the discussion run its course.

A sort of related question: I have seen similar kinds of "clarification comments" on other discussions, typically after several oppose votes, which outline the nom's position without going into individual replies. Would you suggest trying to use those while more sparingly utilizing individual replies, in the future?

As an aside, thank you for the advice thus far. I do apologize if I've caused some problems with both this and the current merge discussion, but I do greatly appreciate you pointing out how best to improve on these problems.

Edit for clarity since I realize I forgot to respond to this: I don't intend to make it seem like I'm looking for a stamp or anything with the visualizers, as I intend only to use them in cases where I feel a visual benefits a complicated merge. What would you suggest in this regard? I feel they're helpful but I don't want to make my points seem more antagonistic by using them.

Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem with a mockup at all, it definitely helps, I think it's just a factor of my issues with the rest of the nomination. If you want my full thoughts, I'll go over it sentence by sentence to explain my reasoning:

In a similar case to the merge discussion for Pokémon Sword and Shield Expansion Pass, these two articles have considerable overlap.

This immediately compares it to a different subject that may not even be similar. Sword and Shield Expansion Pass is not a totally separate "remaster" like Emerald is, and is only tacked on to the original title as an additional DLC.

Outside of some release information and some minor expansions on specific elements, the game has identical plot and gameplay to Ruby and Sapphire, with both of these elements being better covered at the main article.

As I said, the plot and gameplay, while similar, are not identical. I could also call Uncharted 2 similar to Uncharted 3 with gameplay besides a few minor changes, but they have their own articles.

In a similar vein to Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow, Emerald can easily be covered at the Ruby and Sapphire article...

This makes it about whether it COULD be covered rather than whether it SHOULD be covered there, which is the intent of the discussion. Many things can easily be talked about in other articles, but merging wouldn't necessarily be warranted. The arguments you made beforehand about WHY are not very strong, first comparing it to an article about an expansion, not a separate game, and then something misleading.

I believe these articles are better off merged

You never explain why exactly this wouldn't be just moving around deck chairs. How is the reader confused heavily by the status quo, exactly? Is there something in the Emerald article that can throw people off? I think it's pretty stable and isn't broken. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm so you would suggest sort of re-emphasizing the exact points to have a stronger argument? (I.e, gameplay is not that different because so and such...) I intended to use the comparisons to show precedence to my points, though in the way you're phrasing it, perhaps taking more direct examples would benefit that? (Yellow was merged because so and such, and Emerald suffers from the exact same problems...)

Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dōkyūsei 2

Hello, Zxcvbnm,

I don't think this discussion qualified for a SNOW closure. Typical cases I have seen close as SNOW Keeps have around 8-12 Keep votes and no Deletes. This discussion had only 4 editors arguing for Keeping this article so it falls short. I'm not going to revert your closure because I'm pretty sure that this article would have been Kept any way if the discussion had run a full 7 days and reverting the closure would be pointless bureaucracy. But you should raise the bar on what you believe qualifies as a SNOW, it's more than 4 votes of support. This distinction can become an issue if the closure is contested and is brought to Wikipedia:Deletion review which can be an unpleasant experience, not only for admins but also for NACs. I appreciate you helping as an uninvolved editor but be sure you are familiar with Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. Thank you and have a great weekend. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I would have !voted Keep if I did not close the discussion, so that technically makes 5 people. But I get it, the threshold is way higher than I assume. I will let an admin close any AfD discussion because I rarely see any get to 8+ keep votes in the video game realm unless it's a troll attempt... ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding AfDs

I am taking this discussion here, as in retrospect I feel the AfD itself isn't the best avenue to discuss it now that I'm not blowing a fuse. But to be frank, you have become seen as a "boogeyman" of sorts when it comes to working on character articles, and I seriously don't think that's your intention. But we have reached a point where long established editors will say in other outlets such as discord they worry you may AfD a subject they've started on and have even been discouraged from approaching a subject entirely because "Zx will probably AfD it and I don't need that stress." And we should not be dreading PresN's new article list to bring such upon works as if you're some Eye of Sauron.

That's ultimately detrimental to a project, especially when editors feel they have produced something high quality that meets wikipedia's standards they're familiar with, and your approach may come across as seeing it as low. I do feel AfD and even BLAR-ing have a place on wikipedia as valuable tools. But if we're seeing established editors will multiple works under their belt are working on a subject shouldn't we be having a discussion first, not to "feel out an AfD" but to make sure neither party is looking at a topic wrong? This has been an ongoing subject, and I'm definitely trying to approach this as one longtime editor to another, feeling these are common courtesies you would expect. Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

If you really think I'm a bogeyman, than I can certainly leave. But, I'm not sure if you really want that. Like a CEO who fires anyone who disagrees with them, being surrounded by an echo chamber isn't great when it comes to decision making.

Still, I get that my sudden AfDs have caused no small amount of consternation. I will keep that in mind and try to discuss first to make sure I'm not missing something. At the very least it would strengthen my argument were I to still do one. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that. By no means do I want you to leave the project, and while we don't always see eye to eye you do some good work of your own.

Right now project wise we're trying to get a lot of Pokemon articles done to figure out an eventual Good Topic for the things, even with the aforementioned sense of caution. No sense in doing one only to get sideswiped by some article we didn't fully research after all and then having to rush to GAN, after all. And given I put together three articles here recently off found sources (Meltan, Pinsir and Kleavor) it's valid to worry.

How are you feeling about what's out there right now? Should there be any concerns?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Pinsir - its notability is unclear to me, though I think Beckett's Guide and IGN are the strongest sources. Even if I randomly saw it, I wouldn't have AfD'd it without asking, especially because it's such an older Pokemon. However, do you think there is another source on their level that isn't a listicle? I'm not convinced the one about "Kawaii Pinsir", while funny, is actually SIGCOV.

Meltan - despite relying a lot on content farm sources, I'd probably give it a "weak keep" if it were ever AfD'd. I do feel like it toes the line of WP:INDISCRIMINATE due to it not having an appearance as a character with a personality, as with some other Poke's such as Butterfree. But the Variety article helps with that by establishing some importance to the game's popularity.

P.S. I wasn't aware of the Good Topic push so I can see why it would have angered you. I'll keep that in mind when I see many Pokemon articles being created. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate it. Regarding Kawaii Pinsir, I think that one's just in the body, I agree it's not really SIGCOV so I avoided it for reception. But you do feel the Taiwanese website and The Mainichi don't work? The latter is basically Japan's Washington Post, complete with me having to buy a subscription just to read it to cite.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

With regards to the Taiwanese website, do you mean ZhaiZhai News? Because it seems very tiny...

You'd have to demonstrate the contents of The Mainichi because it could be the make or break one here. It's literally impossible to tell from the blurb. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Fair on ZhaiZhai. As for the Mainichi, that one's a big hard to archive or show because of the paywall. Unlike say the Washington Post or Wired it completely hides most of the article unless you're logged in.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Randomly noticed topic via (talk page stalker), but if I may... you can always use the |quote= parameter in a citation, and hopefully people WP:AGF. Regarding the paid access to Mainichi Shimbun more specifically, though, consider using PressReader. Your local library may provide digital access with just a library card. You'd have to know the date of the issue (assuming it's published in the actual newspaper) to find the article, though. I'm not sure of the newspaper-specific search function capabilities provided. 2pou (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver 1 & 2 Remastered

Hi Zxcvbnm. Let me know what you have in mind as far as "enough to justify a separate standalone article on the topic" here. Seems comparable in scope to that of Tomb Raider IV–VI Remastered from the same developers, currently uncontested. Thanks LoK Wiki (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I also think that Tomb Raider IV–VI Remastered is not enough for a standalone article. I'm not the designated article patroller or merger though, so I may decide to take on one article and not another. You can't just point at a newly created, also unsuitable article and say "well they made it so mine must be fine". That's not how it works, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there a designated article patroller or merger to refer to? Coherency is useful, if you prefer to cast it along the lines of "well they made it so neither must be fine". LoK Wiki (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, there is New Page Patrol, but they don't really check for whether a page overlaps with another page. So I think what I meant to say is, "it's best to understand what should and shouldn't be there and why" rather than pointing at some other page that didn't happen to be merged (yet). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

My Draft about Backyard Baseball 2001

Thank you for giving me suggestions on reliable sources for reviews! I kept looking for some and I was so desperate to get the page submitted because of the acceptance of the Backyard Baseball page and the fact that Backyard Baseball 2001 is getting released on Steam. When I didn't find any reliable sources for reviews, I kind of gave up. Well, I'll keep working on my draft page to make sure it's acceptable to Wikipedia's standards and thank you for correcting my mistakes. 74.132.195.94 (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

No problem. I legit want to see articles pass, but if it lacks the right sources, it might just end up deleted, so it's best to make sure everything is up to par beforehand such that it has zero chance of being removed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. 74.132.195.94 (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to say

Thank you, for your more level headed approach to stuff. Felt you needed to hear that as of late, and I truly appreciate it. Even if we're likely going to butt heads again at some point. XD Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)