User talk:Zxcvbnm

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)

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)

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)

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). [1] 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)