User talk:Zxcvbnm

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 22 § Mythological stuff to legendary stuff on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BlasterOfHouses (HouseBlaster's alt • talk • he/they) 03:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ladder scene 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/Ladder scene 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.

λ NegativeMP1 01:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zxcvbnm, recently I came back to the I See Red article to update it and improve the sources in hopes that it may be acceptable for Wikipedia, but it seems there's issues still. I wanted to discuss the Metacritic reviews argument and its notability with you, and see if there's any way it can be improved.

I did research for examples of other games that are not so popular in Metacritic, and found several of them only by looking at those listed under January in 2022 in video games. I've read WP:WAX and I'm not saying that having Metacritic reviews is irrelevant or much less that these games don't deserve a spot on Wikipedia; only that that single criteria may not be the best for all cases.

In this case, the topic seems to be notable most prominently in Argentina and Germany (due to the Argentine developer and German PC publisher, Gameforge). The game has been covered by large, mainstream media only a few times (and that's not to ignore: is HAS been covered by large, mainstream media, like IGN and several Argentinian newspapers, like El Cronista and Infobae, which are two of the most popular in the country, not to mention government agencies), but it has been quite extensively covered by smaller, niche or indie media (not including social media or reddit (where it had a small viral moment concerning piracy)). I tried to show this especially in the latest edit (as well as updating the article, as the game continued to have news).

Then there's awards. There's no GOTY, but the game has won widespread and prestigious awards, some with very famous judges.

All of this is to say: yes, the game does not have four Metacritic critic reviews and yet, no, it would not seem to be true that the topic was not covered outside of Wikipedia by multiple published sources that are in-depth, reliable, secondary and independent.

Let me know what you think! Thanks. AgusTrobajo (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"It would not seem to be true that the topic was not covered outside of Wikipedia by multiple published sources that are in-depth, reliable, secondary and independent." This is essentially all that matters in the end. For example, if you are a Youtuber who has a massive fan following, but zero mentions in sources, you will get rejected. If the mentions in the newspapers are just trivial mentions, then that is not enough. Usually notability for a game involves having at least a few previews or reviews that are all full length and reliable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the double negative in the sentence made it confusing: I meant to say that the topic *was* covered outside of Wikipedia by multiple sources that are in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent, as shown by my message above but mainly by the sources in the article. AgusTrobajo (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Sorry for the insistence. Do you have any thoughts on this or other ways to improve the article so it can be a part of Wikipedia? AgusTrobajo (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are the 3 best articles from reliable sources that you can show its significant coverage in? You should go for quality over quantity and use as few sources as possible, but the best sources you can get. It's common for editors to use numerous low quality sources to obscure a lack of notability, but that hurts its chances of being accepted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, and sorry for the delay! I'd say the most notable, external and in-depth sources listed in the article are IGN (which comes as part of the coverage over multiple articles and videos of their Rogue Jam event, where I See Red won an award and 100k from a jury that included Reggie Fils-Aimé, ex-president of Nintendo of America), the Argentine government, and Unity.

There's an honorable mention for a source perhaps less notable, but that still had some impact, which is SwitchUp's YouTube review. AgusTrobajo (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI, it looks like you mistakenly double voted at Talk:Boxing_Gloves_(film). Cheers, Mdewman6 (talk) 01:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad, I got rid of it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your contributions. I note your bold move of this article to the all-caps "ACE 2".

Is this really the common name? Note that there is at least one source cited in the article that uses "Ace 2". This also makes the title inconsistent with Ace (video game); some more research and/or discussion is probably needed. 162 etc. (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From my look over the other reviews shown on Mobygames, more called it "ACE 2" than didn't. The name is also listed like that on the cover and within the game itself. It seemed to me like a fairly clear move, and the same appears true with the first game, so I will likely move that soon as well. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few changes to Draft:Nahida (Genshin Impact character) and want to know what you think. Additionally, with regards to the comments you made about GameRant, I think it's an acceptable source to use in this situation as the pieces of information I am citing from it are uncontroversial and (IMO) are mostly game information; she is one of the most popular Dendro characters in Genshin. » Gommeh (he/him) 15:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GameRant is acceptable to use for uncontroversial information, but not to prove notability, which you are using it for.

After looking over the new sources, I remain convinced they constitute trivial coverage. Even if I approved the article, it would be merged fairly quickly by others. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where would you recommend I go to prove notability? » Gommeh (he/him) 15:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find WP:SIGCOV in several sources listed on WP:VG/S, or some other thing like a book or research journal then the character will be independently notable. The vast majority of characters will only be able to be listed on List of Genshin Impact characters though. A lot of the characters for the game have much trivial coverage and little significant.

As a related example, some examples of SIGCOV from Furina (Genshin Impact) are this, this and this. As you can see they all constitute a large amount of critical analysis of the character and the author's opinions on them and their importance. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, sources like this would be acceptable for notability? It's by the same author as one of the sources you linked. » Gommeh (he/him) 15:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit iffy on that one because rather than going indepth into the character, it just analyzes a teaser trailer. That's a more shallow level of analysis that is limited to what the author can actually see there and not the character's full depiction in the game. It's possible that if there were a couple more very excellent sources that could potentially be used, but it's certainly much weaker than the equivalent article for Furina. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. What about this that analyzes her gameplay? If not, what about making it a permanent stub? » Gommeh (he/him) 16:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERMASTUB is an essay, one random user's opinion, and it is dubious whether it even makes sense with regards to Wikipedia's current rules. SIGCOV implies there is enough content to expand an article beyond a stub. If an article cannot go beyond a stub, it is not likely to be notable. Even if we knew the info was out there somewhere and cannot access it, it would not imply "permanence".

That is from the same author and site, so it would not count as multiple sources for the purpose of passing WP:GNG. There'd have to be at least a few, like I showed with Furina. For whatever reason journalists covered Nahida less, indicating lesser importance in Wikipedia's eyes (which is more about cold hard proof than whether you personally like a character or not). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I've moved the draft article to my userspace. If journalists ever decide to publish more in-depth content about Nahida (which IDK will happen or not) I can always publish it then. If not, I can use it to polish my article-writing skills. » Gommeh (he/him) 15:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]