User talk:Zxcvbnm/Archive 7

Re JC
Hi. Since you're doing expansion work on JC Denton, I think you can find some discussion about him through searching in Google Scholar and Google Books. I did a search along the lines of "JC Denton deus ex" to test it, and there is stuff to find. I found Scholar useful to find some bits to expand Adam Jensen's article. I also managed to find a GameSpy hosted Deus Ex "bible" of sorts that might be helpful citing some things, left that on the article's talk page. ProtoDrake (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Ominous Horizons
Hi. You reverted my merge of Ominous Horizons: A Paladin's Calling into its predecessor, Catechumen. I am aware that some reviews exist (I, too, have seen the MobyGames reviews tab). However, I noticed that Gamezilla! is not an RS (WP:VG/RS refers to this Polish site), AG.ru might be a user review, and the CGW one (issue 210, page 116), while reliable, is extremely shallow, leaving only GameSpy. When I rewrote Catechumen (a pending GAN), I planned to have it cover the entire (brief) history of N'Lightning, including Ominous Horizons and the company's subsequent closure. It currently does that, sans reception for the second game. An article for Ominous Horizons based almost entirely on one review (with only minor details added from other sources) would have little potential to ever be a "good", comprehensive one. Even if it is technically notable if we include Hardcore Gaming 101's coverage, I would like to, with your blessing, re-merge Ominous Horizons into Catechumen and briefly touch upon its reception there instead. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. Regards, IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 10:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Even if we assume Gamezilla! is not reliable, it has more than sufficient sources to be standalone (GameSpy, Absolute Games, Computer Gaming World, Hardcore 101) and there are clearly calls for it to be so. I don't think leaving it as its own article will affect the Good Article Nomination, but I can't agree it should be merged with these numerous WP:SIGCOV sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * (FYI, the site states the Absolute Games review is from 2001 so I am doubtful it is a user review. If you can prove otherwise, please let me know.) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The point I'm trying to make is that, even though the topic just crawls over the line of notability, any prospective article will be miserable: There are only two proper reviews (if we include AG), which would lead to only the briefest of reception sections, and beyond the budget and some dates, there is no proper development information. The mere possibility of an article does not necessitate one if the topic is covered just as well within a section of another, as I would argue is the case here. It also feels like a weird rip-out when Catechumen already covers the company's entire six-ish years in operation (which it should, since it is the more notable topic). I will rewrite the Ominous Horizons article shortly to demonstrate what I mean, and I will try to find out whether "SiD" is a real person and, if so, a staff member or a user. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 16:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * My guess is that it's a pseudonym for a journalist (around that time it was rather common for gaming journalists to use handles rather than their names, even on major sites).
 * Based on what I've seen, the prospects aren't "miserable". There is enough there for a decent sized reception section. GameZilla, while defunct, listed itself as an online magazine with a full team of editors, so I think there is reason to believe the site is reliable and can count towards notability, unless you can see a reason to doubt its veracity. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I found that the author of the AG review is "Oleg Vyatkin aka Sid". Whether Gamezilla! is reliable should be determined by the respective board. Despite either, it still seems that notability is the principal issue you cite. Like I said, the topic is notable, even if barely so (2.5 reviews + a scratch of a retrospective in RSes). I have yet to write the Gameplay and Reception sections (will do that tomorrow), but the relevant sources are already exhausted and, as it stands, the article will likely end up shorter than even Pyongyang Racer (which is not a lot). I stil feel as though it would be better covered at Catechumen, where the same information (albeit condensed) already exists. Maybe I'll get a few third opinions once Catechumen is GA'd. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 18:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Whether Gamezilla! is reliable should be determined by the respective board.
 * To be clear, while Wikipedia has a list of "trusted" sources, there is no guideline that states that a source must be specifically listed as reliable to count. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. But if you wish to list it for feedback then by all means.
 * Pyongyang Racer is a Good Article despite its length. There is also no rule that says short articles cannot be standalone articles. Sometimes there just isn't that much info, but it's still worth having its own article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * English Gamezilla was discussed. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_28. The discussion was Inconclusive. Timur9008 (talk) 10:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't really call it a discussion. One person just brought it up but nobody really agreed or disagreed with their statements. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Machines (Nier: Automata)
The article Machines (Nier: Automata) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Machines (Nier: Automata) for comments about the article, and Talk:Machines (Nier: Automata)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of 1TWO3Writer -- 1TWO3Writer (talk) 11:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bomberman series logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Bomberman series 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, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

"Ahri" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahri&redirect=no Ahri] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. user: A smart kitten meow  20:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of MonkeyPaw Games


The article MonkeyPaw Games has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "I made this article in 2017, but I am no longer convinced it passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources are largely routine announcements and interviews."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

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

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 10 October 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 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) 13:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Star Walkin' (League of Legends Worlds Anthem)
You moved Star Walkin' (League of Legends Worlds Anthem) as Disambiguation unnecessary but it appears to be the actual title of the song. "Star Walkin'". PrimeHunter (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, my bad on that. I realize now that was not a disambiguation. Nevertheless, I feel like it may still apply as WP:CONCISE, and have noted mentions in sources where it's solely referred to as "Star Walkin'", which is why I didn't move it back. You're welcome to start an RM if you think there's a solid argument for retaining the subtitle, and I will gladly abide by whatever gets decided. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I found it in Category:Pages with disallowed DISPLAYTITLE modifications and don't care much so I have just removed the now invalid DISPLAYTITLE. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to Cornell study on Wikipedia discussions
Hello Zxcvbnm,

I’m reaching out as part of a Cornell University academic study investigating the potential for user-facing tools to help improve discussion quality within Wikipedia discussion spaces (such as talk pages, noticeboards, etc.). We chose to reach out to you because you have been highly active on various discussion pages.

The study centers around a prototype tool, ConvoWizard, which is designed to warn Wikipedia editors when a discussion they are replying to is getting tense and at risk of derailing into personal attacks or incivility. More information about ConvoWizard and the study can be found at our research project page on meta-wiki.

If this sounds like it might be interesting to you, you can use this link to sign up and install ConvoWizard. Of course, if you are not interested, feel free to ignore this message.

If you have any questions or thoughts about the study, our team is happy to discuss! You may direct such comments to me or to my collaborator, Cristian_at_CornellNLP.

Thank you for your consideration.

--- Jonathan at CornellNLP (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

November Articles for creation backlog drive
 Hello Zxcvbnm:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!

The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

On the uniqueness of the Postrimerías article
Hi Zxcvbnm, thank you for reviewing the article on Postrimerías, but I have to say that I disagree with you, The Last Jugment is not the same as Postrimerías. The main reason is that The Last Jugment is part of Postrimerías, which is a broader term. Postrimeriás is a Spanish term used only in the Hispanic world, but I think it should have its own Wikipedia page to explain it to a global audience in English. I also want to clarify that I used the Spanish word because it has no direct translation in English, and in the definition of the word I wrote that the most correct translation might be: the last days (which is not the same as the Last Judgment). Let me know if we can publish this page. Thank you and we will be in touch. Guillermob29 (talk) 10:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Looking it up online I see that apparently it means Four last things. There is also a page for that. Are you really sure that "Four last things" does not encompass what you are trying to explain? Perhaps it is a case of accidentally believing there is no such meaning in English.
 * If it is still not accurate, you will need to show me a reliable source demonstrating that it means something else. I cannot find any such source in English, and Wikipedia requires everything to be verified by WP:RS. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Monster Hunter Felynes.png
Thanks for uploading File:Monster Hunter Felynes.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) 18:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft:List of Energon Universe story arcs
Greetings. I wrote this draft after being inspired by a similar article (List of Preacher story arcs), but I must tell you that I cannot write this in Transformers Wiki, because their rules are very different. Therefore, I feel more secure here. I don't know what I must do, but I accept any suggestion. There is another draft I'm writing (Draft:List of Energon Universe characters), then I want to write about its mythology. Thank you. Fico Puricelli (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * If there is a page to put this stuff on, it's Energon Universe. I hate to say it, but List of Preacher story arcs is probably not notable either. Everything in Category:Lists of comic book story arcs falls under WP:ALLPLOT to the point I question if the category and its articles should exist. Be mindful that, since anyone can create an article, some articles you use as inspiration could be improper inspiration. They must all be checked against the WP:NOT rules before using them as a template. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice. So, instead of "story arcs", could I make a "list of Energon Universe issues"? Or is it almost like making the same mistake? Just in case. Fico Puricelli (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * An issue list does not fall under the same problem, but seems unnecessary as of yet. If there ends up being an amount of issues so large it would be difficult to catalog in the main article, that could be a possibility, but it seems too soon. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:DC Comics weapons has been nominated for discussion
Category:DC Comics weapons has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 12:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Puzzle Quest The Legend Returns Cover.png
Thanks for uploading File:Puzzle Quest The Legend Returns Cover.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) 18:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Puzzle Quest The Legend Returns Screenshot.png
Thanks for uploading File:Puzzle Quest The Legend Returns Screenshot.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) 18:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing mobile games
Hi! Was wondering if you can put this page up for deletion. I'm not why it was put up back in mainspace since nothing changed since last time.(since it's User:Maestro2016 work) Timur9008 (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I assume the approver didn't realize the provenance of the article. Either way, you should be able to put it up for AfD, that is accessible to any editor, so I am not sure what I have to do with it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I avoid AFD's because the last time I put an article for deletion I messed things up. Hence I avoid them since then. Timur9008 (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

LeChuck
Given Monkey Island is your jam, have you thought about fixing up his article by any chance? We're still doing the whole Start-class improvement thing, and the reception section for it is painfully rough. I figure given your recent work on the other two character articles you might have run across better sources, or at least some dev info. Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I think in this case LeChuck is simply not notable. Guybrush was already tough to prove, and he was the hero of the series - it's always easiest to find WP:RS about protagonists. I would support a merge to Monkey Island here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Squirtle
I noticed your afd before at bulbasaur, and now charmander was nom'ed at afd. Do you think Squirtle could squick through its notability by these 2 sources? and. Greenish Pickle!  (🔔) 13:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Those are the same article. And either way, Polygon would only count as one source. While it's a solid piece of WP:SIGCOV, I don't have any indication there is more out there, so I do not think it would get through AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Dracula's castle
I'm not familiar with all the Castlevanias but wouldn't it make sense to rename the article to "Dracula's Castle (Castlevania)"? I mean, the castle reappears in in other games I played but with some alterations due to the system of the video game like Aria of Sorrow. Cheers. Tintor2 (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Santa Claus machine for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Santa Claus machine, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Santa Claus machine until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

While doing all this pokemon reviving...
Do you want me to try and keep an eye out for sources on Lugia and send them your way? I recall you mentioned that was one of your faves, and I think there's at least something from what I've seen though it may be 'lighter' compared to a lot of others. Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * If you can find any then by all means do. I found a lot of interesting creation information I never knew (it seems some of it got picked up by TheGamer, lol), but very little if any reception to speak of. It would be great to revive the article somehow. I assume any of it would have to be in magazines or newspapers or something. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Speaking privately, but for the record I do apologize for how I worded some of that, it was spoken in anger and I apologize. I'll also say I would've appreciated talking about the subject first; as is I'd considered reaching out to you before posting it given you and I interact on a near weekly basis. I can't figure out where you draw the line on some things as counting for notability admittedly, and it can be frustrating. But it isn't for a lack of trying to involve you in discussions Zx.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

you lied
the completionist is notable 2600:1006:B100:DAA7:888:7195:8BB8:C710 (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I literally said it was (barely) notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Haunter, redux?
So I've been compiling sources as I go about on my research, and did manage to find some sources that I feel might be able to work for Haunter on my sandbox. The thing is though I'm not sure if it's anywhere near enough, and the fact a good chunk use valnet sources worry me. Still there is some clear discussion here, and stuff I can cite from this on three facets: comparison to Gengar, the merits of it's own design, and anime/manga adaptations of the character.

...What do you think? Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The source from TheGamer is probably the best of the bunch, with a decent amount of SIGCOV and analysis. IGN is decent as well. Everything else is trivial in my eyes, and I'm ignoring ScreenRant/GameRant for notability purposes due to their situational designation. Cannot find anything in magazines or books that isn't about real ghosts. That would make it teetering on the brink for me but not passing GNG.
 * Funny enough I am starting to wonder if "Ghost of Maiden's Peak", the episode of the anime where Gastly was first introduced, is notable instead. It got a detailed Kotaku article; while it was made in 2023 and therefore past the "unreliable" point, appears to be human-made and could be claimed as a "case-by-case basis" exemption. It also got a shout-out in Anime, Philosophy and Religion. Unfortunately, everything else appears to be CBR. Unless something else exists, probably not either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Found another IGN source, it's not great but after I get some articles done I may try it still, and just pray it doesn't get AfD'd. As for the anime episode I'm not sure, worst case do a writeup with the sources you have and see how it is. What's Wikiproject Anime's take on CBR as a source?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Neuroshima Hex!
Hi! I saw you removed the proposed deletion tag from the page (in hindsight, it should have been an AfD). I tend to disagree with your comment "it has 10 Metacritic reviews so it's notable", as I would not consider Metacritic reviews as significant coverage from independent sources. Nevertheless, I found out that the game won the player's choice 2007 game of the year award in Poland. I think this classifies the subject as notable :) I added an "awards" section to the page with this information. -- Broc (talk) 10:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what you mean about "Metacritic reviews not being significant coverage". Metacritic is a review aggregator for other sites that, yes, have significant coverage of the game. At least three of them are confirmed to be from reliable sources as well. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy holidays!


– robertsky (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message. – robertsky (talk) 06:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Warbits
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Warbits 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 Shooterwalker -- Shooterwalker (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Ravenholm
I got cranky to see that someone made Ravenholm before me, but also happy that it has a Wikipedia article now. I guess it frees me up for something else! - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * If you want other Half-Life-related ideas, City 17 is probably notable enough for its own article (though I'm not entirely certain), and Black Mesa Research Facility could also use improvement. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's certainly an idea. If I see anything good for BMRF, I'll send it your way. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ratchet and Clank render.png
Thanks for uploading File:Ratchet and Clank render.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) 18:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Want your input on Mike Haggar
The article got cleaned up a bit since the C class improvement drive, and looking at it now...it does feel weak compared to a lot of them. I wanted to see your thoughts on it, if it'd be better to merge and retire, or let it ride. I've searched up down left and right with no luck. Even Japanese sources aren't offering much, other than one for Marvel vs Capcom 3 establishing that he's popular in the US, and that's partly why they wanted him for the game. Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hmm, besides the Greatest Gaming Icons mention there doesn't seem to be much about him. I would support a merge here. I think it should go through AfD or a merge discussion, but I'd !vote merge or redirect. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment on Draft:Pretty Cure All Stars F
You wrote that you couldn't find the WP:SIGCOV in "the sources," saying they "appear to be fairly trivial mentions and announcements. It could use actual reviews, if any exist." I imagine reviews DO exist, since the film (also named Eiga Precure All Stars F) released in Japan on Sept. 15, then showed in Hong Kong and Thailand last month. I'd guess that the only reason the film hasn't been reviewed on ANN yet is because it hasn't been released on a Western streaming service (likely Crunchyroll) but when it does, I'd guess there'd be a review. But, I'll look up the film and see if I can add some reviews. Historyday01 (talk) 01:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster-taming_game
Can you delete your Monster-taming page and make a new one? Please delete this page make new one (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It's not "my page". I may have written what's currently there, but no one user owns any page on Wikipedia, or can delete it unilaterally. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Rabi-Ribi
Which of the sources, other than Playstation Lifestyle, are unreliable to warrant the tag? Let me know and I'll adjust accordingly. Recon rabbit  22:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Remove GameFAQs and Rice Digital. They're the only unreliable sources remaining. Source the release dates from somewhere that isn't user-generated. Gematsu is already a source for the Vita version, so you don't have to source it to Limited Run Games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I would also recommend expanding reception with the sources that are reliable. "Consistent derision" is not a great phrase to use there since it goes against MOS:EDITORIAL by implying the critics are attacking the developers. Something more impartial like "the story was seen as the game's weakest aspect" would make more sense. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've been having trouble getting specific release dates on all regions for the PS4 version that aren't from Gamefaqs. Will work on the reception - I'm not too experienced in writing these particular sections and the conventions for writing them is all over the place in examples I'm following. Recon  rabbit  17:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Re: Sigma
It was my understanding that Tintor2 had done most of the work on the article from the conversations I'd had with him and he felt it wasn't strong enough and was suggesting to merge it himself. I'll admit too I misunderstood your revert as just contesting the BLAR and wanting to force an AfD discussion instead (which has been the track record as of late on here, i.e. Pit). So I apologize.

I have a talk page right over there and other means to give me a shout if I screw up though. I try to avoid AfD sometimes not as a procedural skip but to avoid the permanence AfD tends to imply. But also in the event another editor points out they maybe have more material like Cukie did here. Just ping me if I'm being a dumbass, we've been trying to involve you in these article discussions for months now as is and we've still got 600 articles overall, so there's going to be times I likely will be. Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * If I revert something, it's never just for the hell of it, it's because I believe there's a chance it's notable. I don't disagree with the BLAR process in general. But I think it should not be used for most VG characters, because there is a low chance that it will not be uncontroversial. I've seen many, many unmerited BLAR's in my time where the redirecting user simply assumed the article wasn't notable. Surmountable problems do not merit a redirection unless the article is barely-there in content. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * As it stands there are very few articles that really are BLAR worthy at this point. Tintor tended to have done most of the MMX/Zero articles, and the way he spoke gave the implication the article was primarily his contributions and he didn't feel it was up to the mustard (and admittedly a lot of his articles have been dragged through the AfD ringer as of late).
 * But yeah, while we butt heads on here sometimes we interact daily so if you feel I screw up just drop me a line on my talk page. Keep in mind I'm *really* trying not to drag everything to AfD due to the finality it tends to stigmatize articles in the event sources get found or manifest.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If it's a recent character, yeah, okay, I can get that AfD can potentially hurt chances for recreation. But for rather old characters like Sigma, I think the sources are either there or they aren't. I suppose I don't have the mindset that a source will just pop out of nowhere. Could happen, but fairly unlikely. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thanks for your help!

Falconik123 (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC) 

Orphaned non-free image File:Tokyo Xtreme Racer series logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Tokyo Xtreme Racer series 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) 19:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Replaceable non-free use File:Alex Kidd series logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Alex Kidd series logo.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text  below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Crono
Out of curiosity, did you notice the need for a histmerge before or after you did the page swap? Primefac (talk) 07:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Before. However, I assumed it would have been worse to just cut 'n' paste the new page onto the old. I assumed the correct course of action was to move the new page into place and then put the old page's history on it. If that was wrong, let me know. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's generally a lot easier to do a histmerge before any page moves are involved (often because the histmerge itself will include a page move). Not the end of the world, and there are always exceptions (and places to explain complex histmerge requests), just wanted to know how we got where we got this morning :-) Primefac (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Got it, I was entirely unaware of that. I will do any history merge before a page move if I come across that in the future. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean ask for a history merge, since you aren't an admin? Primefac (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, obviously I don't have the ability to carry it out. I meant "do" in the sense of place a notice there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Cool cool, I figured as much, unfortunately there is no good way of implying good humour rather than accusations here! Primefac (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Goals (video game)
I may disagree with the notability tag, but as the page creator, I'm in no place to remove it. But, you did raise an excellent point about titling the page -- would you keep to company name to its registered spelling of "GOALS AB" (all-caps)? I ask, because both the company & game are registered in all-caps and the company may be treated differently from the game with the naming conventions here on Wikipedia.  BOTTO ( T • C ) 18:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * According to the manual of style, the company must also be written as "Goals AB" unless there is an acronym. See MOS:ALLCAPS. A vast number of trademarks are capitalized solely to stand out and it would be confusing if Wikipedia treated them all in the same way it does acronyms. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Perfect. Thanks!  BOTTO ( T • C ) 18:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Resubmission of "Call to Arms - Gates of Hell: Ostfront
Unaccustomed as I am with the process of resubmitting I feel I need to comment why I resubmitted the page for Call to Arms - Gates of Hell, as that might be unclear. The name of the article was edited to reflect the correct name of the game that is being described. After review it was (rightfully) stated that instead of creating a separate page, this information should be edited into an existing page (Call to Arms). However, a change took place and this is no longer the case; Call to Arms - Gates of Hell is now sold as a separate title and is no longer an expansion. Thanks! ACG Snafu (talk) 14:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, that doesn't really matter, it still doesn't seem to have gotten new coverage in the (reliable) press and continues not to be notable. Therefore I have my doubts it will merit a standalone page in the near future if ever.
 * To be perfectly honest, I'm not entirely sure if the base game itself is notable. I referred you to the base game because it was the most obvious target to put the information, but its sourcing is largely limited to rather minor updates and changelogs. You may want to track down the 3 absolute best sources you can find and put them here in order to demonstrate it passes WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I understand your reasoning and I will look at ways to improve the article on the point of notability. ACG Snafu (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Warbits
The article Warbits you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Warbits for comments about the article, and Talk:Warbits/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Shooterwalker -- Shooterwalker (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

King K. Rool new AfD
Hi Zxcvbnm, a deletion review for King K. Rool was conducted at the request of an editor. The consensus was that the original debate was correctly closed, however there is potential new information to consider. As a participant in the original AfD, I invite you to participate in the new AfD if you would like. The new AfD is located at Articles for deletion/King K. Rool (2nd nomination); please also see my comments at Deletion review/Log/2024 February 19. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Re: FF
I still feel the WoR and others are a bit rough...but I recognize you have some decent ideas in there too. And well consider this an olive branch after our recent throwdown: this talks about a broader subject, but has a pretty good paragraph on the WoR, and it's comparison to Dark Souls' world. This may be worth digging into too. A bit more examination here in a published source.

Hope these help. I still feel the Amazon holds up btw, and hopefully will be able to see how a GAN takes to it. But that's another kettle of fish. :P Let you know if I find anything else. Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I think the Kill Screen article could certainly be called an example of SIGCOV, so thanks for bringing that up. I don't have access to the journal article, but I'm not really feeling the other one - it only mentions the World of Ruin in passing, and say "the player's job is to reverse this process", which is not really true. Even other sources mention the fact that the apocalypse is irreversible, which is part of what makes it so shocking. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an eye out all the same. SIGCOV in my eyes is a lot more "can I gleam a tangible thought from this that actually gives insight on how someone felt, preferably in multiple sentences?" That's why I'm always mindful of the Death by 1000 Cuts Approach to these (i.e. Lucario): sometimes you just ain't gonna get a huge bit of discussion on a subject, but you can still illustrate there was significant coverage across multiple sources with unique thoughts and angles.
 * Honestly if we didn't...there'd be a lot less fighting game character articles overall to say the least.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your help.
I understand now why the Radiant Residents wiki page isn't accepted. There isn't enough notable sources from professional review sources to consider the game "notable". I will wait until there is more of that before trying to create the Article again. Sorry for any inconvenience! CPT78999 (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * If it does get some kind of significant coverage in a reliable source in the future you can add it to List of Roblox games. Right now though, it probably shouldn't be mentioned at all on Wikipedia, it's far too minor. It's just how notability works unfortunately. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * How much coverage does there need to be for it to have it's own Article? CPT78999 (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The typical baseline is when a game gets several full reviews from different reliable sites or publications. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Then we need to get Radiant Residents popular enough for me to create this article. CPT78999 (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Question
Brookhaven is one of the most popular Roblox games today. It has 40 Billion visits, and plenty of Professional reviews. Could I make an article on that? CPT78999 (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * If I may butt in, the Wikipedia is really not the place for video game fan content unless it has been covered by actual reliable sources, and it appears this Roblox stuff doesn't cut it. Have you considered joining fandom.com's site and contributing there? This Brookhaven thing for example, has a site at official-brookhaven.fandom.com/wiki/Brookhaven. Zaathras (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but some Roblox games are notable enough, and have enough professional reviews to have official pages. For example, Adopt Me has a page. So why shouldn't Brookhavne have a page, or Doors, or Blox Fruits. I feel like anything that is successful enough, or has a big enough public eye should have a Wikipedia page. CPT78999 (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What you "feel" is not relevant, the Wikipedia has policies and rules on notablity and reliable sources that must be adhered to. Zaathras (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly it's not about what I think, you'd have to convince Wikipedia as a whole to modify its inclusion criteria, which is unlikely. This game is not even a borderline case, but has no notability whatsoever. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Then I'll just stick to things that have notability. CPT78999 (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:


 * Proposal 2, initiated by, provides for the addition of a text box at Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
 * Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by and, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
 * Proposal 5, initiated by, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
 * Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
 * Proposal 7, initiated by, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
 * Proposal 9b, initiated by, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
 * Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by, , and , respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
 * Proposal 13, initiated by, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
 * Proposal 14, initiated by, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
 * Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by and, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
 * Proposal 16e, initiated by, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
 * Proposal 17, initiated by, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
 * Proposal 18, initiated by, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
 * Proposal 24, initiated by, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
 * Proposal 25, initiated by, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
 * Proposal 27, initiated by, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
 * Proposal 28, initiated by, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Patrician IV cover.png
Thanks for uploading File:Patrician IV cover.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Platform holder
Hi there. Couldn't we have expanded the platform holder article instead of just reducing to a redirect in a glossary? I spent a lot of time to create the article and find sources for it. It feels a little defeating to have done all that for basically nothing. Osh33m (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately "platform holder" is too narrow a concept to work, and what was in the article at that point was a pure WP:DICDEF. However it doesn't have to be for nothing. You are free to integrate the information at Video game. If it grows too large, you may be able to start a split discussion. However, at most I can see Video game platform becoming an article after it becomes big enough a split is required. "Platform holder" will likely still be an untenable concept for an article as it is simply a buzzword referring to a company that owns a platform. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Okay. I took your advice and added the content to that page. I hope it gets expanded upon in its current state still. --Osh33m (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

CSD G6s
Hello, Zxcvbnm,

Please tag these pages using Twinkle and select CSD>G6 Move and, in the field, put the name of the draft you want moved. There needs to be a live link so the patrolling admins don't need to cut and paste the name of the page in the search bar. Then an admin can review the draft, delete the redirect and move the article swiftly. Otherwise, your request is likely to sit for quite a while until someone gets to it. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 07:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I have the ability to do a pageswap myself if I really wanted to. But, specifically, I tag these unnecessary redirects for deletion so that I can actually run the draft approval script rather than having to do everything manually. I don't mind waiting extra time, otherwise I'd just do it immediately. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Torrent (Elden Ring) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Torrent (Elden Ring) 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 Articles for deletion/Torrent (Elden Ring) 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) 08:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm going to withdraw the AfD, not because of your arguments themselves but because I do understand it's a subject that matters to you, and looking online upcoming DLC may offer reception, and an AfD would just make that harder. I am saying this privately though because I truly do feel you need to examine the consistency of your stances: it does feel hypocritical in how you argue and go after other subjects (including just recently), something that's been brought up to you before by myself and others. A consistent view would help a lot, both for other editors and your own work.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, obviously the article is important to me - I wrote the whole thing! I'm not sure why I'd spend hours writing an article just to immediately be fine with its deletion.
 * I'm a bit conflicted on the withdrawal - you clearly aren't changing your stance on the current article at all. I do hope that it gets more reception upon the DLC's release, but I also hope that this will not be used to, in essence, "deny me the win".
 * According to the AfD stats tool, I have an 80% rate of correct !votes and a 75% success rate for articles I nominated. This, to me, does not indicate hypocritical behavior, as I'd expect them to be far more all over the place if I was solely !voting based on personal preference. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Zx, it's just me just doing a nice gesture. Your article going down isn't a "win" for me and if you think I see it as such then you're not only assuming some really bad faith ,you've really got your head in the wrong game.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Explanation for recent action
Could you explain to me why my article for Gran Turismo for Boys does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines? WikiBunny2K1 (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * When you created it, it had 3 articles from IGN (counts as a single source, per WP:GNG), and 2 interviews (WP:PRIMARY sources, per GNG), making it not pass notability guidelines. As it only had a single secondary source, IGN.
 * The idea of the IGN source being significant is also dubious. I recently worked on an article called True Fantasy Live Online that was also a cancelled game, but that had indepth development and gameplay information, while the sources in this article are just news posts with very brief info. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Understood, thank you for the clarification. WikiBunny2K1 (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)