User talk:Zxcvbnm

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)

Request for Reassessment of Gamezop Draft

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

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

Re: Michelle Chang

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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