User talk:Zxcvbnm/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Zxcvbnm. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

About The New Order: Last Days of Europe

Hi I saw you were one of the guys who declined the article since it lacked sources, the topic about being a popular mod in a niche community has very few people from outside that community who write about it so sources are very scarce on the topic I don’t know what to do to make the article better. AvailableViking (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Featured article review

I have nominated ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Halo Arbiter.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Halo Arbiter.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) 02:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

My AfC submission of Draft:Evercore Heroes

Hi, I updated Draft:Evercore Heroes according to your comments and general guidelines and resubmitted it. How does it look now?

Note: I did not create or submit the article originally, I just stumbled upon it. Merko (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Merko: I'd drop the sources from GGRecon or MMO Culture as they don't seem reliable. The article omits a far better source from GameSpot. This Rock Paper Shotgun source is also easily usable as preview impressions. It would also be nice if there were more than just a single sentence of opinions from each critical source (and the opinions are by far the most important part - a statement such as "Ali Jones of GamesRadar+ called the combat "a little sluggish", saying that the game was a "risky gamble" that did not aim for mass appeal" is an opinion, "GamesRadar+'s Ali Jones stated that the game has a focus on macromanagement" is restating a fact). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Re: Combine

Nice job on fixing that up. Just wanted to say that personally, there's not enough of that right now.-- Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Kung Fu Man: Thank you, having worked on other Half Life related articles I had guessed there was something there, even if the article was full of really surface level coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Beyond_All_Reason_(video_game)

Hello, thank you for you recent review of my draft article on the open source game Beyond All Reason. This game is quickly growing in popularity and as a word of mouth advertised game we have growing pains. One of the major issue we have is the lack of Wikipedia article. For example recently major twitch streamers have started to play Beyond All Reason, and they will get 10k+ views on YouTube, however we are unable to correctly categorize in Youtube.

Since this game is an open source community project we have not had any major press coverage, however we are also getting like 1000s of players every day. I asked the actual devs and we peak at 1500. I'm not a paid person, I'm just a regular player who's been playing for the past 2.5 years. The game is extremely polished and will certainly be comparable to many AAA RTS games.

It's a great game and I hope you can check it out and make some editorial suggestions how to help the article warrant a Wikipedia entry. I understand it might be missing something like a proper PCGamer review. I have gone through and removed all unreliable sources in the article on my last edit, and I believe there are only solid sources used in the citations. Could you please review what's in there now and advise on any further steps. Du8hd4r4 (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Not wanting to pollute my main topic or sound like I am advertising a particular streamer https://www.twitch.tv/day9tv I heard will be streaming this game, and it will have perhaps one or two thousand viewers. Might be worth checking out if you are interesting in knowing more about the game. Du8hd4r4 (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

One further point I think points out how popular BAR is that is scored #20 in this RPS article where the community voted for their favorite strategy games of all time. https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/these-are-your-50-favourite-strategy-games-of-all-time

I cited this article in my draft, however I did not call out the #20 in particular, but that is very impressive. Du8hd4r4 (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Du8hd4r4: Wikipedia's policy is that "if it's popular, journalists will write about it, giving it notability". We do not gauge popularity within Wikipedia itself. It doesn't really matter how popular or unpopular something is, as long as it gets the requisite sources to satisfy WP:GNG. In this case it has none - the RPS source is simply quoting users, so it fails WP:USERG.

Its possible a game may become popular in the future, but not be notable enough for an article right now. We don't make the calls, only follow journalists who do make the calls. So, if you are representing the game, you'll want to have things written about it in reliable secondary sources. Simply putting articles on Wikipedia because you want to advertise, is not allowed under policy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

To sum it up more succinctly, if a game gets previews/reviews of a sufficient number, it's notable. There is not really any amount of popularity that can replace those sources, who are the ultimate judge of what is a notable game. If you are angry there is not an article for a game, yet it has nothing written about it in the press, you will want to go to the press and advertise to them - and if they still say "no thanks", it's probably not notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for the pointers. I think we can try and advertise directly at PC Gaming journalistic sources and that may help them pick up coverage. Du8hd4r4 (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Recent edit reversion

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick (Talk) 12:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: The text is not infringing that website, it is taken from the game under WP:FAIRUSE. "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. In all cases, an inline citation following the quote or the sentence where it is used is required." I may have accidentally not put a citation mentioning the game there, I wasn't sure if it was required. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't consider those quotes remotely brief. The first was eighty-three words, and not properly referenced. I urge you to check with others active in the copyright space to see if they think the passage is a sufficiently short. S Philbrick (Talk) 01:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: This manner of sourcing is used in a standard way in many video game articles, like Chrono Trigger, a Featured Article (see refs 16-28 and 186). So if you are implying this is copyright infringement maybe it would be best to bring it to the attention of WP:VG as it could affect the good/featured status of numerous articles. I will say that is the very least I could add to fully reference the article to the game, it's impossible for it to be reduced, but maybe it could just state the particular place it was from minus the dialog? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm still trying to wrap my head around your inclusion of quotes in footnotes. I can't recall ever seeing such treatment, and have it figured out what purpose it serves. Short quotes are often used in articles to emphasize that certain exact words were used by the speaker. Somewhat longer quotes are commonly used in the flow in article to make some point that is best made in the original words of the speaker. Compiling a list of quotes in footnotes doesn't seem to achieve either purpose. Reproduction of copyrighted material ought to be done extremely rarely and as limited as possible and I don't yet understand the purpose of collection of quotes in footnotes. It's my opinion this is violation of copyright. You provided an example of the featured article but I don't see such treatment. I do see a block quote longer than I would've liked but at least it's in the flow of the article arguably complying with one of the examples of accepting uses I listed above. Let me know if I missed something but I did not see the featured article supporting your use. S Philbrick (Talk) 11:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: I was just following what I assumed to be fair use based on usage in articles such as Zero (Drakengard) (a Good Article) and the aforementioned Chrono Trigger. I did not realize it was overly lengthy to be considered that. I assume the correct course of action here is simply to not cite anything at all for that section unless it can be cited to a secondary source? If not please advise about it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

With the important caveat that it's not a formal policy or even part of the manual of style, I place a lot of weight on this essay: Wikipedia:Quotations. I fully understand that an essay does not carry the same weight as policies or guidelines, but it goes into some detail about the proper use of quoted material and in my opinion it seems consistent with the manual of style tersely summarized here: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations

As well as the guideline found here: Wikipedia:Do_not_include_the_full_text_of_lengthy_primary_sources

If I understand your post correctly you are in agreement that the material is subject to copyright, while you believe quoting it qualifies as fair use. Is that correct?

Determining whether material is subject to copyright tricky but it's largely a factual issue, and a high percentage of interactions I have with editors in such matters dwells on the lack of knowledge of some editors about the concept that we cannot simply use copyrighted material, and in other interactions with editors who might think that the absence of a copyright notice for the existence of a creative commons license makes the material acceptable for use. I don't think that's an issue in this case as I believe you agree with me on both points that the use of copyrighted material is subject to restrictions and the material in question is copyrighted.

That leaves us with the thornier issue of whether the usage qualifies as fair use. My experience is that brief usages of material enclosed in quotation marks, set off in block quotes or set off in callouts is acceptable, subject to the challenging question of how long qualifies as brief. I also recognize the value of using quoted material in a footnote or reference, if used to support a point in the main article, where use of the exact words is important. I'm sure you are aware of WP:OTHER, but I am in agreement that usage found in articles that have gone through the test to qualify as good or featured articles, while short of definitive is a strong sign that the usage is considered acceptable. However, while you identified and FA and a GA, I saw each of them using quoted material consistent with the essay and guidelines, and I didn't see any examples of a collection of quotes listed in footnotes.

To summarize, believe you agree the material in question is copyrighted but you think you are usage qualifies as fair use while I do not. I think it would be valuable to get another opinion. I will suggest user:DanCherek or user:L3X1, but perhaps there is an editor with experiencing copyright issues you'd suggest. S Philbrick (Talk) 15:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Uh, it's not just a collection of quotes. It is fully cited to the parts of the article where the quotes are relevant, all within the Characteristics section. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the usage of the material in footnote quotes is fair use, but I'm not certain the article is best served by having so many footnotes. I lack familiarity with the game so I can't at this time point to any specific footnotes which I think should be retained or removed. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I missed that. S Philbrick (Talk) 19:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I am not yet persuaded but L3X1 thinks it's okay so feel free to revert my removal. S Philbrick (Talk) 19:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Re: Gameplay and notability

It's definitely not a case of me saying gameplay can't add notability, it's just that it needs to be something significant I guess is more what I mean? Like how Mewtwo changed R&B PvP, Overwatch's Brigitt and people trying to force her out of the game/harass her VA over her's, or how Dan Hibiki's augmented his parody appeal. Gameplay discussions that reach beyond the scope of the individual game itself, that sorta stuff. But even then the character should still be the primary focus.

Just elaborating my thoughts on that matter.-- Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Kung Fu Man: Well, what was written there was, "Discussions of gameplay at a professional level does not grant notability in and of itself". I am simply going by what was said, I understand if you made an error when writing it though. I think you mean the same thing I do where it cannot simply be WP:MILL discussions. It has to indicate they are important or notorious somehow. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

June 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Zxcvbnm (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not sure why blocking me was necessary. I was not engaging in any edit warring and despite reverting my edit once, let it stand when User:Kung Fu Man undid it. In fact I can't recall a time when I edit warred or was disruptive in my entire time in Wikipedia. I was perfectly fine with letting my edit be permanently removed if others believed it to be an insult. I feel like the entire thing was handled in an extremely impersonal manner with putting a template with no explanation and then blocking me like a new user for a mistake. I think it can be seen that my intent was not to insult the person stated in the source but explain why it shouldn't be used. I see now that the wording was overly harsh and "makes overstated claims sometimes" or something along those lines would have sounded like less of a spurious assertion. But I think that it was a matter of wording and a direct insult was never intended. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Per discussion below. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

A 31-hour block is pretty excessive. A block, I think, is excessive considering that Zx has never been blocked before. And Zx, while blunt, was making a statement that Todd Howard is not himself a reliable source of information. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the supporting words. And I agree that I was too blunt in this situation for sure, I definitely was not out on a vendetta against him. I have nothing against him, I was simply trying to talk objectively about past claims in the same vein he has made in trying to back up what was already said. I see now that it was a mistake to make statements with such implications, and it was a one off mistake that I will not try to put back or continue with at all. I am normally focused on other things anyway. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

A brief comment in response to Special:Diff/1159920376. No, I did not back up what you said. I noted that Todd himself has told people not to take interview comments as hard facts and unquestionable truths. This is, perhaps subtle, but quite different from suggesting a deliberate issue of telling the truth. -- ferret (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ferret: Well, as I stated, it was a really unfortunately worded statement and I did not intend direct defamation by it. I am perfectly fine with it being removed and I will resolve not to do anything similar in the future. I am not sure who is in charge of the unblocking process but if there is anything else I must do to prove that I fully understand now why it was wrong, let me know, thank you. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, zxcvbnm, I've been taking a look at your unblock request. Frankly, I'm not super persuaded by your original unblock request, but what you've said just now is good. I just want to double-confirm that you intend to stay away from excessively personalizing comments about living people in the future, and I'll be happy to unblock. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: I think it can be seen I don't have a history of doing such things and I normally do not comment on individual people. The situation was just a fluke and after this I will certainly not make the same error. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The Nier: Automata Church

This article has been nominated for a merge here. If you post your stance, I can paste it into that discussion. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

That would be a bad idea, Cukie Gherkin. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I feel as though this portion of the policy is not relevant to this. An edit I make to the talk page is not made at Zx's direction and I am in support of a merge (which I assume Zx is not), fulfilling the "independent reasons" criteria. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

It's fine since the block is not long enough for this to be a significant issue. I am not particularly worried about trying to respond immediately as merge discussions can last for weeks. I don't desire to circumvent anything or edit on the encyclopedia until the block is overturned. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	Rescue From Deletion Award
	Thank you for help with Islands of Insight! History6042 (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Nobeta notability

ANN is a top quality source.
Gematsu is certainly reliable as well, and they have a good amount of coverage about the game.[1]
Siliconera is also on the green column and they have some news pieces in addition to the review.
TheGamer is situational, but the review is very much SIGCOV and not content farm trash (like theseother "articles").

Aye, you could argue that the western coverage is somewhat thin, but that alone would satisfy the 2-3 source requirement. However, that would be ignoring coverage in Asia, which is pretty significant given that it is an Asian game. A very quick look reveals for example:

IGN Japan [2]
4gamer [3]

Could you reconsider your ~~drive-by~~ tagging? Charcoal feather (talk) 06:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Charcoal feather: I'm not sure what's the basis for saying it is "drive-by". It is simply standard patrol of a new article. Please remain civil, as WP:OWN style behavior and hostility are not allowed on Wikipedia. Editors must be able to deal with the possibility their article is not notable.

Nothing I have seen on Gematsu qualifies as SIGCOV, and TheGamer is situational. Additionally, you may not realize it, but I already checked IGN Japan and 4Gamer and could not find anything SIGCOV about it. I certainly did not ignore Asian sources. If there is something major there I am missing, please let me know, as it really only needs one major Asian source to be fine, otherwise I am fairly certain the game does not pass WP:GNG threshold. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I apologize if you perceived my request as hostility. I agree that the "drive-by" accusation was uncalled for, and have retracted it.

Situational =/= bad. It just has to be judged on a case-by-case basis.
This 4gamer article looks like a full review to me.

Charcoal feather (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Charcoal feather: See, you could have simply said "this particular 4Gamer article is a review" and WP:AGF and you'd have proven your point. As it is, I didn't think anything you had showed was SIGCOV, but now that this new source has come to light, I agree that the article does likely pass GNG. I'll swap the tag and you can feel free to remove it when you integrate the 4Gamer article into Reception. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Again, I apologize for the initial snappy remark. Charcoal feather (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

VoxPop Page

Hey! I was wondering if there is anything you could do to help me get the submission button back on the VoxPop page? There is currently an existing page up. HiDot94 (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@HiDot94: The page was rejected numerous times for failing notability criteria. Please read WP:NCORP in detail. Wikipedia is not an advertising vehicle and the fact that the page has been created and edited by WP:SPA editors suggests its sole purpose is to create a WP:SPAMPAGE. At this point it is highly unlikely the article will be accepted as numerous editors have checked for viable sources and come up with nothing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Save Room Sequel

https://www.pcgamesn.com/resident-evil-save-room-game Already added the info to the Merchant, but saw you were the primary on the original game article so figured I'd send this your way.-- Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Kung Fu Man: Yeah, I noticed - I added a sequel section to the article with the info. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Flowey Undertale.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Flowey Undertale.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) 17:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Fear & Hunger Wikipedia page

Thank you for your review of the proposal to create the Fear & Hunger page, I was not aware of the attempt a few weeks ago and the truth is that it does not surprise me that I was not the first since the game is gradually gaining status cult and it would not be surprising if more reliable sources appear in the future. Hopefully in the future the game will have a page and get a higher status than it has right now. Cheers Sergeant Batou (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

It's certainly 100% possible the article was WP:TOOSOON. It's just that now it doesn't seem to have the sources. Most of the sources you posted, besides the RPS one, are not really considered evidence of notability by WP:VG, which was already gone over in the AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Completely agree with your analysis, something tells me that one day this game will have an article, but it seems that for the moment the stars have not aligned. Checking that it is the third attempt by three different users shows that there is "demand" for the article, but not the necessary relevant sources, we will have to be patient. Thank you for your comments! Sergeant Batou (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Toriel for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Toriel 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/Toriel 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) 08:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Would you consider becoming a New Page Reviewer?

Hi Zxcvbnm, we need experienced volunteers.

New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
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 — ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 20:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Metroid (fictional species) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Metroid (fictional species) 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/Metroid (fictional species) 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) 01:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Felyne for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Felyne 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/Felyne 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) 06:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Metroid

Hi, do you have any interest in working on the Metroid (fictional species) article? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll definitely try to improve it at least to the point where it demonstrates GNG passing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Layers of Fear (2023 video game), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Horror.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Felyne

In all honesty I was surprised when I saw it was your work, especially given how harsh you are on the AfC end. I mean no offense with that, just confused given your high standards on that end. I ran into a brick wall with the thing while trying to improve Start-Class character articles for the task force drive and didn't notice it was yours til I looked at the history page.

Again, no offense is meant by any of this. But I'm legit trying to understand your philosophy as an editor so we don't butt heads and can work together.-- Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I should note that the article was made 5 years ago, and I realize standards are a lot higher now, at least in the Video Games WikiProject. Today, I would likely have not made the article in its current state, and would've tried to find some better sources. But I also think it's notable and deletion is not the solution, WP:SURMOUNTABLE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Well I did a crawl through Internet Archive's sources on the matter with little luck. The creatures are acknowledged, but nothing to cite. I'm feeling a lot of the minor fighting game character articles that got AfD'd even have more commentary on them than these guys. Even reviews of the film didn't offer anything other than acknowledge Meowscular is in it as a fan nod.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

How it passes GNG was mentioned in the AfD, which led to people !voting Keep. GNG requires several pieces of SIGCOV, not ten or twenty. I fully admit that it just barely passes the threshold, but that's not the same as falling short of the threshold.

Also found this Nintendo Life article about Prowler Mode (playing as a felyne in Monster Hunter Generations). While partially a guide, it has some reception, like, "Playing as a Prowler is a great, fun alternative to the more serious hunter characters - it does take a little getting used to". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

That feels more like game guide though. The real problem is that the article doesn't feel like it stands apart from the main body of work. Like what are we saying about them as a character that can't be said in the universe article and the film's body of work? Rhetorically speaking of course, but still that's where the focus should be.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE shouldn't be confused with external sources being like game guides. As long as the article isn't written like a strategy guide, WP:GNG states that "Sources may encompass published works in all forms..." If useful information can be extracted from the source, it can count as significant.

How it stands apart? Well they're characters who are practically their own spinoff subseries and have prominent roles in all the Monster Hunter games. I also doubt we've scratched the surface of what may be out there in Japanese. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Since the discussion at Elaine went to hell, figured I'd bring up what I wanted to here: if you feel there are fringe cases for those parameters that are acceptable, why not bring them up in the discussion going on at WT:CHAR? I may not agree with your assertion personally, but having some better idea of consensus across more editors and different viewpoints could help make sure editors aren't butting heads over those details, especially when I take it to the VG MOS discussion later.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

RE: Sagat

Zx, those sources are strictly about his gameplay in two individual titles. That is essentially citing game guide content: how he plays in a particular game should take a backseat to commentary about the character. The AfD on Urien already illustrated that too. Undisputed is a good source, but it's primary and would be mainly dev info.

Do you have any sources that work for notability as far as a fictional character?-- Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what makes you think Undisputed Street Fighter is a primary source. The book has a foreword talking about how the author independently sought out Capcom developers and he synthesizes their information into a secondary analysis. Furthermore I also disagree that the other sources are unusable simply because they are ingame analysis. WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE only applies to articles, not sources. I would ask you to open a real merge discussion if you believe it should be merged, not do an end run around policy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Policy does not suggest that you cannot boldly merge an article. Furthermore, no one argued that they were unusable, KFM argued that the IGN and Shacknews sources don't show notability. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:CAREFUL states that there should be more caution taken on articles that might be controversial. I think there is reason to argue that Sagat, a long running Street Fighter character, would be controversial to simply blank and redirect. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

You're also acting like I don't have a history of restoring articles if sources do manifest at some point in time. That's why we've been steadily building reception sections in the list article. And for all your thumping of policy like you're preaching gospel, keep in mind WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES already got thrown at your mentality that "sources must exist" just because a subject is long standing.

Rather than pushing to force an AfD, why not just shelve him for now until the reception section can be built up enough to bring it back out? Let's do this properly so we can set a better example for the other editors and get better articles in turn.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the "possible existence of sources" can be used in a deletion discussion either, but the point of the discussion is so that people have a chance to find sources you may not have. Soft deletion is pre-empting the discussion, IMO. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

To me, the fact that the two sources were sources I would argue can't be used to show notability tells me that the decision to merge was correct. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 04:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Darker Dreams (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Resubmission of Beyond All Reason draft after press coverage

Hello, thank you for recently reviewing my resubmission of the Beyond All Reason article. Recently Beyond All Reason has received some major coverage (relatively for us) in the form of a preview from PCMag. I felt that this might rise to the bar of notable, excuse my pun. You said and I quote "To sum it up more succinctly, if a game gets previews/reviews of a sufficient number, it's notable.". Right now definitely have the opinion of PCMag, tweakers.net, Chris Taylor (the creator of the Total Annihilation series) cited all who have their own Wikipedia articles. What more would you like to see? I think these are all high quality, so I need some guidance on quantity. Du8hd4r4 (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Du8hd4r4: So first of all, you could have just replaced Draft:Beyond All Reason instead of making a totally new article. However, I am all but certain that the game is still WP:TOOSOON. Upon its Steam release it will likely garner more critical reviews. Right now the PC Gamer preview and Rock, Paper, Shotgun mentions are the only ones from clear reliable sources and the others are either not confirmed as a trustworthy site or have not actually been "published" by a publication.

There is no rush (at least, if you are not simply advertising, which is against WP:NOT - advertising should be done outside of Wikipedia, via a dev's social media channels) so I suggest waiting until the Steam release and it will probably be perfectly fine to add to Wikipedia when it has gotten full reviews.

Since you said us I assume you are associated with the game so please declare your WP:COI on your user page per the instructions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Zxcvbnm That article was written by the development team of BAR, and I am not connected directly other than we sometimes interact in Discord. I wasn't aware that article still existed.

I fail to see how a Steam release would make a game notable. I am honestly not sure if the development team will ever get their act together and make a steam release, however I still believe the game is notable. To be honest, I would appeal that this game is notable, and I certainly put my own stamp on it.

I don't think anyone is making any money on this game, besides the streamers perhaps. It is a totally free to play RTS based on Total Annihilation that is distinct enough for the creator of Total Annihilation to acknowledge that, readers of the most popular PC gaming publication on the internet to vote it highly, and a major national tech publication to review it highly, plus all the great user reviews and acknowledgement on youtube, twitch, reddit. You may be thinking that I'm making this up, but I can cite my sources.

Look, if you don't think this game is notable, as a fellow gamer I ask you to try it. I feel this is a cultural phenomenon, and I'm not simply advertising in the sense that I'm profiting from writing this article. As a long time believer in the goals of Wikipedia I feel that this game deserves an entry in it. Yes, it would help more discover the game, but I only feel that as a player. 156.39.10.100 (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Zxcvbnm this previous message form 156.39.10.100 was from me, so I just wanted to declare that I have no conflict of interest in writing this article, and I only use the word "us" out of habit. Du8hd4r4 (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Also AFAIK the entire enterprise is non-commercial. The devs have declared they intend to keep BAR free forever. Du8hd4r4 (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, this is not really an issue of what I personally decide or whether I think the game has merit. If I approved it, it would be removed anyway because I am simply stating the rules so as to make them understandable to you. And to be fair, the game already has a good source or two, so it will almost certainly be notable soon. Just not right now. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability so there is such a thing as too soon.

So I am simply saying it will be better if you wait, because putting it in mainspace now will just lead to an AfD and get more messy. When it gets a couple more previews or reviews, you'll be good to go, and a Steam release or some other type of 1.0 release will probably cause publications to take notice. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@ZxcvbnmYeah, I agree that likely it is a matter of time. A free open source effort is just not very "noticed" by sources that might be considered mainstream. And it leads to a bit of a chicken and egg problem to projects that don't have much money say to people promoting the project full time and deals etc all set up. And I think even objectively BAR is very notable, but perhaps still so niche. It almost has to climb a higher measure as to be good enough to warrant the "organic" coverage.

So, I will wait until it somehow gets some more "impactful" coverage before resubmitting, but yes I would think that a few more big publications. A Steam release would be nice, but like I say I'm not holding my breath on that. It's kinda sputtering towards that so hopefully eventually, but I can think of a hundred games not on Steam with will deserved Wikipedia articles, and I see that as no prerequisite. Du8hd4r4 (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations \| August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Re: Snorlax and Wooloo

I left some comments on the AfD for the former, but as stated if you find something tangible feel free to bring it up. Honestly I wish you'd get involved in the discussion on List of Pokemon so we can hammer things better out there. I'm not saying your sources are terrible, but it'd help to have more eyes figuring out what is and isn't working.

Regarding the latter, I rewrote Wooloo's reception section in regards to the merge discussion. I know you and I have a very different standard when it comes to notability, but I feel the reception should work especially in light of some of the sources you've suggested, and would like you to give it another glance if possible. I mean hell, one large source outright manifested in the time during the merge discussion.-- Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I've gone over and read the rewritten Wooloo reception section. Unfortunately it doesn't really change my calculus at all. It's very well written, but is pretty similar to a lot of merged articles that string together tons of small mentions to make what seems like notability. Let's just assume Fanbyte is SIGCOV, that makes 1 piece of SIGCOV. I don't see the multiple examples of major coverage required for notability as I do with Snorlax, a much older and more well-known Pokemon, who may have familiarity on par with Pikachu. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Being familiar through isn't a guarantee of notability thought, and honestly if Snorlax had some of the articles discussing it *directly* that Wooloo does I wouldn't have suggested it for AfD, who I'd argue has several sources showing sigcov. To better put things, I feel even Gengar has more notability than Snorlax based off what's said about it. It's a character that is also arguably as iconic to the series but one you yourself argued to merge. I mean no offense, but I honestly feel sometimes you're being too subjective on notability in regards to if you like a subject or not vs. what can be said.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It's unfortunate you have that impression, but I think it's a difference of opinion and that's it. I'm neutral about Snorlax and am not a particular fan or detractor. I'm more of a fan of Lugia but did not put up any sort of debate about merging it since I realize its sourcing is still pretty weak. If I really operated according to what I like, I'd put up a vehement defense, but I know that's pointless.

In terms of Gengar I should state in my defense that neither of the SIGCOV currently in the List of Pokemon article were actually written at the time. To say that I judged Gengar poorly based on articles that were yet to be written is a bit much - I'm not a psychic-type Pokemon. I might have !voted to weak keep if they were around then. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Alright joking aside it was a bit harsh for me to state that, it's just sometimes your reasoning can be hard to follow consistently, especially when subjects that are stronger sourced (even outside of this discussion) you'll argue against but then for subjects like Metroid or Felyne that are stuck at Start because...well what exactly do you cite? I want to work with you on these just as with a lot of the other character-article-focused editors, but it feels like we run contrary to each other.

Like with the Snorlax argument I think a big thing to take away is "what exactly do you say from them?" That's the problem that hit when I sat down and actively tried to work on its reception section because I'd like to get these overall to GA if possible. But it's a roadblock where one of the most iconic characters in a franchise has noticeably less said about it than a sheep that just happened to click right with players. Same with Sagat: I'd rather get all the SF2 articles to B or GA but there's just nothing to say. The sources aren't there. And it sucks. So it's not a case of "I want these gone", it's one of "If we're going to get these to good topics, what can we do when they seem to fail notability based off other articles?"

Also do you have a Discord?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Personally I'd rather not join a Wikipedia Discord, it just adds to the stuff competing for my attention and I want it to be such that I can take a Wikibreak if I want without feeling an obligation to have to check in with a Discord. I'm also not quite certain that talking about it even more will fix the differences in opinion, rather than just leading to even more disagreement.

I will say that not every article has to be capable of becoming a GA. Sometimes bare minimum is fine as long as the sources are there. A problem is that you are going by the assumption that to be notable, it has to have enough material to form a Featured Article someday or something along those lines, but at least in my experience, I don't think that is the case. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Every article that has at least some substance has potential to be GA: saying some just aren't is honestly a truly bizarre mindset. The whole goal of the project should be to bring articles to their best possible version while informing the reader: it's one of the reasons we have goal bars on task forces and whatnot. It's also one of the reasons projects like Square Enix re-examined a lot of what they had and considered many to be merged, namely character articles.

And yeah notability isn't a factor but we should still at least consider it so things don't get surprise AfD'd, and honestly I'm amazed it isn't part of the policy for character articles in light of that.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Mona Sax screenshot.png

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

File:Mona Sax screenshot.png

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete or generic. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact source (such as the web page, or printed document) where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the direct/bare URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 01:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Iruka13: The source does link directly to the image page, it is not a bare link. Is this an error? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The link should not lead directly to the image. However, your case seems borderline, as the description is (should have been) on the page itself plus on the page behind it. — Ирука¹³ 01:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

This is exactly how it shouldn't be. — Ирука¹³ 01:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Understood, however this is coming off as overtly hostile. Please try to understand people make mistakes, especially when most of my images do abide by this policy. I would appreciate if it was more of a polite reminder, especially since there is nothing functionally wrong with the image itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps there was a misunderstanding due to my poor knowledge of English. Please explain what you found hostile in my words.

I just meant that the link in the description to the first mentioned image can be formatted the way you designed it, and in the second it should be reissued. — Ирука¹³ 02:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Well slapping a template on a veteran editor's talk page is somewhat impersonal as is, and the ensuing comments came off as very blunt. It would have been better if it was a message like, "Just FYI, the sources you put on this and this image are bare links, which is not allowed under copyright policy. It may have been a mistake on your part, but please try not to add links like that in the future - thanks." Saying "it shouldn't be like this" assumes that an experienced editor doesn't know the policy at all, and sounds like lecturing. I'm not saying you had bad faith intent, but it will not come off as polite. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Question

Hi! I found this Forbes source mentioning how many poeple worked on the original Xbox(1000 people). [4] I'm not sure where to put that info in the Xbox (console) article though so I was wondering maybe you can help. Timur9008 (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Timur9008: Frankly, I would leave it out. It's hard to know where exactly the author pulled that "1000 people" number from. It could be a vague estimate, a guess... anything really. Unless the author cites Microsoft telling them that amount, I don't think it should be stated as fact. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough Timur9008 (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

GameCenter CX 3

User:Cukie Gherkin/To create#Game Center CX 3 - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

A great many of those (that I didn't already use) are from Siliconera, which is recommended against using if better sources exist, or just short announcements repeating something said elsewhere, or trivial. I did add one of them for a sentence long statement, but I don't think it can be improved that much more, at least with those. There are some more substantive Japanese sources that might be used for Development. You're free to add to it if you think I missed something. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Baldur's Gate III Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Baldur's Gate III Logo.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) 17:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Glossary of video game terms

Hi Zxcvbnm. You rewrote the definition of "git gud", but maybe you removed a core aspect of when the phrase is often used. Namely in the context of learning the mechanics and patterns of soulslike bosses. I feel that "the game's mechanics" is too general and does not cover it sufficiently. Byt he way, learning mechanics is also different from developing skills and expertise. I'm also not sure about your choice of "non-gamers", nor about "insult struggling players". Another thing that I see happen a lot is that editors attempt to make - and perhaps succeed at making - article text more accurate, but they do so in front of existing references that may then no longer support our claims. Also, the original text is a lot more objective, without "often used to dismiss" (makes me feel like adding citation needed) and "While it can be used" (seemingly implies it's often/mostly not). I don't know; something about your rewrite doesn't feel right. Maybe you can give it another look? --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:3FE1:EC20:4459:58E6 (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

1) It still notes the phrase is used in soulslikes. However, I feel that you are misinterpreting what the Kotaku article is trying to say. When it talks about it in relation to bosses, it is reinforcing a point the author is making in the article. This article says it refers to "any and all signs of gaming weakness". This article says it's about "getting better at games or we'll stop playing with you". It's not specifically about learning boss patterns.

2) The Kotaku article states that "while some Souls fans contend the phrase started as genuine encouragement to those struggling with a challenging franchise, the more regular application of the phrase is used as a method to harass folks who are struggling with any game in any particular way." Perhaps the gamers and non-gamers thing was not directly mentioned, but it is in this article.

3) "Often used to dismiss" is based on the Kotaku source's statement, "the more regular application of the phrase..." ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The Citation Barnstar

		The Citation Barnstar
		Thank you for the links you provided at Talk:My Exercise, it made reviewing it as an NPPer a breeze. —Sirdog (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Machines (Nier: Automata)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Machines (Nier: Automata) 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of 1TWO3Writer -- 1TWO3Writer (talk) 06:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Machines (Nier: Automata)

The article Machines (Nier: Automata) 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:Machines (Nier: Automata) and Talk:Machines (Nier: Automata)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of 1TWO3Writer -- 1TWO3Writer (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mega Man 11 Roll.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mega Man 11 Roll.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) 17:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Undertale and Deltarune characters for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Undertale and Deltarune characters 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/List of Undertale and Deltarune characters 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.

The Night Watch (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the above list, something I was thinking about was possibly just making it about Undertale, and covering the Deltarune-specific characters in the plot of the game's article for now as a bullet list, similar to visual novel handlings of them. While there is overlap, there's going to be a lot more reception and viability for an Undertale specific list, and we can mention in their sections on the list if they appear in Deltarune as well. What do you think about this?

Also your work on Amaterasu (Ōkami) is looking good, as an aside.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Kung Fu Man: You may propose a move if you truly believe Deltarune characters are not notable, but I disagree. Stuff like this and this, while technically about the game itself, go indepth with certain characters and their motivations and meanings. Therefore I'd likely !vote to retain the current article title, ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't know for now. I mean a big part of what's making the Undertale list work is the external reception like those scholarly sources. It's not something I want to push right now (I've got my hands full on the character list front, not sure if you checked WT:VGCHAR lately or not), but it might be worth looking into again later. Or if there's enough separate sources possibly two lists, with a quick mention at the top explaining some characters from Undertale appear in Deltarune but are technically different characters.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Rebuilding Optimus Prime and Megatron Wikipedia Articles

I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to bring to your attention the current state of the Wikipedia articles for Optimus Prime and Megatron. It appears that these articles have fallen into a state of fancruft, lacking the clarity, depth, and neutrality that Wikipedia strives for.

As a dedicated Wikipedia editor with a keen interest in Transformers and related topics, your expertise and passion would be invaluable in revitalizing these articles. I believe it might be necessary to consider a comprehensive rebuild from scratch, focusing on accurate and well-sourced information that presents a balanced perspective on these iconic characters and their significance within the Transformers franchise.

Optimus Prime and Megatron are central figures in the Transformers universe, and their articles deserve to be thorough, well-researched, and accessible to a wide range of readers. A clear, structured, and neutral presentation of their origins, character development, and impact on popular culture would greatly benefit Wikipedia's readership.

If you're willing to take on this endeavor, I encourage you to start with a fresh perspective, utilizing reliable sources, and adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines for content quality and verifiability. This will ensure that the articles provide accurate and informative insights into these beloved characters.

Your contributions would not only enhance the Transformers-related content on Wikipedia but also showcase your dedication to maintaining the integrity of the platform. I believe your efforts could significantly improve the quality of information available to readers interested in Optimus Prime, Megatron, and the broader Transformers narrative.

Thank you for considering this suggestion. Your commitment to Wikipedia's standards of excellence is truly commendable, and I'm looking forward to the positive impact your work could have on these articles.

~~Best regards,~~

~~Grandmaster Huon Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of articles in need of improvement on the encyclopedia, and requests for help going out all the time. I have no real interest in Transformers, so I won't be able to help. Since you appear to be heavily interested in it, I suggest WP:DIY rather than calling for assistance. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

~~I'm only interested in these articles because they are subpar, nothing else. Are you also on discord as well? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock.

I'm not part of the Discord and I probably don't plan to be. I'm a casual editor, I might have bursts of activity but I don't like the idea of always being on call.

My personal recommendation is that it's a bad idea to call articles "subpar" or other negative remarks. It goes against WP:AGF, by implying the article's creator or creators somehow don't belong on Wikipedia. "In need of expansion" is a far better way of phrasing it, because it does not totally dismiss whatever is there now. Often "something" is better than "nothing" even if it ends up being rewritten. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

If this information is relevant at all for you, Grandmaster just got blocked for disruptive editing a few minutes ago and was likely a sockpuppet. Incredibly likely they knew the advice you gave them already. NegativeMP1 19:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@NegativeMP1: I figured as much. Rather than taking any advice, they were getting more trollish by the hour with no sign of stopping. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)