User talk:Yoblyblob/Archive 5

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

Hi! While I appreciate the article, I do think that it needs to be draftified for now since the Legislature has not approved the measure to be on the ballot. As is, it violates WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL since it definitively states that a ballot measure will be taking place, when in fact, we don't yet know. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Tennessee's 7th congressional district special election was draftified for a similar reason. If not, I'll likely add the AfD template and start a discussion soon. AG202 (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@AG202 while usually true, the article can be re-worded. It is notable as an act of legislation, separate from the vote. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 22:36, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@Yoblyblob: The effort itself is notable, but there is no act yet. We don't know what the actual contents of it will be and we should not be declaring anything concrete about what it would do. Ex: Is it a legislatively referred constitutional amendment? Are the maps a part of the amendment or are they separate? Will "Election Rigging Response Act" even be the official title? There are too much many unknowns for there to be an article with this title. AG202 (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@AG202 I think Newsom's press release covers some of this.

"Governor Newsom unveiled the framework for the proposed constitutional amendment — which will be known as The Election Rigging Response Act"

Just under that, it clarifies that this will all be in one amendment.

"Retains California’s Citizens Redistricting Commission and declares state policy supporting the use of fair, nonpartisan redistricting commissions nationwide.

Temporarily adopts new California congressional districts for use in congressional elections through 2030." Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 22:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@Yoblyblob: I saw the press release, yes, but that still does not alleviate the fact that the Act has not been filed. We should not make articles about acts that simply do not exist. It violates WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL. We should wait until the act is filed in the legislature at the very least. We don't even know if it'll be amended or even pass in the first place. AG202 (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

September 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 September 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Greetings. Some time ago I began my own work towards a Bad End Theater article. Unlike you I began with a review of the sources and found that Bad End Theater is barely notable, but I hadn't started writing anything yet. So, I think we can help each other out :). Here's a table summary of my findings (see the draft I linked to for more details):

Source assessment table prepared by User:The Sophocrat

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Wellesley College thesis	Author has no relation to developer.	Written for the author's Honors in Media Arts and Sciences. I don't entirely understand WP:THESIS, but I think this source is acceptable as it was advised by 4 thesis advisers (who are all, of course, qualified people from the college).	I would say a 630-word chapter is significant coverage.	✔ Yes
Final Weapon review	Magazine has no relation to developer.	Never discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard. Their About us page seems professional enough so I believe they are reliable for this review.	Review is entirely about the video game.	✔ Yes
PC Gamer short review	Magazine has no relation to developer.	Listed as reliable for this area at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources.	~ At 230 words/5 short paragraphs, the review is pretty short.	~ Partial
Game Developer interview	Article is an interview with the game's developer.	Reliable video game online magazine per WP:GAMEDEVELOPER.	Interview is entirely about the video game and the developer's experience of creating it.	✘ No
Tech-Gaming review	Author has no relation to developer.	An editor at the reliable sources noticeboard wrote that "Tech-Gaming is basically a prolific blog, by an anonymous person, who is its sole employee, so it is a WP:SPS.". Looking at the website he seems to be right. The author doesn't claim to be a subject-matter expert either so this source isn't reliable.	Review is entirely about the video game.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

As you can see we have two sources unambiguously useful for notability (the thesis and the Final Weapon review [which another editor already pointed out to you]) and one so-so source (the PC Gamer short review). If we consider that last source valid for notability, then we have 3 sources to meet the general notability guideline and our article is good to go on that front.

I will help out at the draft, particularly improving the lead and expanding the gameplay and reception sections. Cheers, Sophocrat (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @The Sophocrat, per the draft talk page, another editor said the PCGamer source would qualify as significant coverage. Also, I started a discussion and the WikiProject's source review talk page on Final Weapon, and consensus appears to be building that it is notable. I wasn't aware of that thesis, and don't really know about the standards. Thanks for helping out at the page!

Ideally any unreliable sources on the page should be removed and replaced with those reliable ones. I probably plan to continue working on the page in the future as well. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:32, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Yoblyblob. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:2025 in Fijian football, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello Yoblyblob, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Sabita Binta Azad Shifa, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I draftified instead, cheers. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. asilvering (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2025 (UTC)