This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be auto-archived by ClueBot III if there are more than 5.
This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zxcvbnm.
Hi @Zxcvbnm. I just wanted to ask about Enderman, as I am aware we have both reviewed it through AfC. What is odd is that when I checked back on it today, the article is now in mainspace, but without any of the AfC edit history. Our declines are only present at Draft:Enderman, which is now a redirect to Enderman, the same article? Just wondering if you know what is going on here? 11WB (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@11wallisb:User:Newbamboo did a copy-and-paste move from the draft page, in order to circumvent AfC and disruptively move it into mainspace despite the consensus of the AfD 2 years ago to delete it. He also seems to have done a deletion review on the page's AfD from 2 years ago, which is obviously without merit. I'd recommend reporting it to WP:ANI as it is clearly WP:NOTHERE behavior. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was my suspicion. I am extremely reluctant to ever go to ANI or even AN. My reason for this being I would prefer to keep my Wikipedia activity free of being involved in anything untoward. If appropriate, maybe I could ping an administrator so they can review this? Unless you think ANI is absolutely necessary, I will trust your judgement as a veteran editor! 11WB (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@11wallisb: Well in any case, you are supposed to exhaust any other means of dialog with the editor before resorting to ANI, so I left a final warning on his talk page telling him to revert his recreation of the article in mainspace. If he ignores it, which I think is likely given his previous behavior, I will report him. While technically a user recreating a deleted page is not necessarily disruptive if there is significant new sources that can point to its notability, this is not only a page that has been deleted twice for failing notability, but several users agreed that the new sources were unreliable, and the user improperly moved the page, deleting its history. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:29, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why the AGF failure @11wallisb? They were told at DRV by editors with decades of experience that they could move it to main space (and it could be dealt with at AFD instead of DRV). And ANI - what for? There's no rule about moving an article in Draft to main space - even if rejected (which is hardly a surprise given the over zealous gatekeeping there I've observed. Nfitz (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nfitz. I wish to make clear I was only made aware of this situation recently when reviewing the draft at AfC. As you can see in my initial message to Zxcvbnm I was unsure exactly what had taken place regarding the article entering mainspace. I trusted Zxcvbnm's response as a longer-term editor and AfC reviewer. If I was wrong about this situation I will happily admit so. Thank you. 11WB (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just wanted to ping you, and didn't think much about who was not AGF. The rejections would have been clear if they followed the link to the Draft. Nfitz (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is ok. I think the mistake I have made here was being too quick to assume something was awry. I always try my hardest to follow Wikipedia policy to the letter. A good example of that actually being this discussion on my talk page between myself and Zxcvbnm regarding a close I made in error.
In this situation, whilst I don't think the way @Alalch E. addressed my comment was fair, I will concede to that AfD not being appropriate if in fact the DRV discussion was not yet concluded. I need to make clear again: I did not open the AfD, I only commented on it. I was unaware of the DRV when commenting on the AfD. My thinking from the start has been that I likely missed an edit somewhere that explains why the original draft was turned into a redirect and a mainspace article appeared in its place. I still don't have an answer to that question yet. 11WB (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the people at DRV were familiar with the situation with regards to it being rejected multiple times.
Furthermore, your statement of "overzealous gatekeeping" appears to be in itself assuming bad faith. As far as I am aware, the article was correctly rejected by every possible metric... ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm, it appears the AfD has been procedurally closed, with the closer also leaving a reply to my comment at the bottom. I am not going to challenge this, I think this situation is better left to more experienced editors. 11WB (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I can assume bad faith by noting a system issue. I didn't even look at the edit history or what the rejection was about - only the current state, which certainly was good enough to move. So it's nothing personal. Yikes - it failed by every metric? This is why I stick to main space when I create new articles! The new AFD was a gross violation of the guidelines - perhaps they did not know there was a DRV running? Nfitz (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you thought the current state was "good enough", then you need to check harder what is or isn't a reliable source. There are a number of source lists in that regard, including perennial sources and WP:VG/S. One cannot just plop down any random blog and expect the article to be accepted as notable. Skipping AfC to make articles also does not make them any less susceptible to deletion if they are unencyclopedic. AfC is not a permanent stamp of approval, just a way to see whether your page will probably be deleted before it is published. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:29, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The PC Gamer source is reliable, but not secondary, it's mostly an interview with Notch. The Times of India article is a a pure game guide, and while this is not necessarily a disqualifier, it doesn't have actual analysis of the Endermen and is 100% a rote list of ingame actions. This plus the source's situational status makes it seem like a trivial source.
I would really appreciate it if you didn't continue to attempt to cast aspersions on my ability to review sources, while putting out sources that were already reviewed and found to be problematic. I am still rather confident it's not notable, and pages have been deleted or merged with far more sources than that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:22, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you reject the Times of India article because of an entirely unrelated warning about paid advertising (which is common world-wide these days) then I'm not casting aspersions, I'm simply saying that you are wrong. Merging (which was never attempted for this article) in almost any case, if both articles are short. This is not the case here - especially with the recent expansion. If it's good enough to merge, it's good enough for a sub-article when lengths are significant. Merge is not deleting most or all the text, and redirecting. Nfitz (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
About Enderman
I apologize for the inconvenience, I must explain that I decided to paste the content I wrote in my draft with new sources to prove notability after seeing this page restored and hung up with a notability template, not to want bypass AFC, because I am not particularly sure whether AFC is mandatory on the English Wikipedia. In any case, I am willing to abide by any consensus that the community has on this page in the next deletion discussion. Newbamboo (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel this has been a mistake of many parts. I will own up to my misjudgement, I posted here to try to understand what had happened. When Zxcvbnm replied I trusted that what they said was 100% correct! The DRV and AfD discussions I feel were both unnecessary, however I'm still confused myself as to exactly what has gone on. I have assumed good faith and will continue to do so now. AfC is not mandatory to editors that are extended confirmed, however it is the only way editors under 500 edits can contribute articles to the project! 11WB (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As you have over 500 edits @Newbamboo, AfC is now open to you should you choose to use it. The issue in this particular instance is the prior AfD discussions and the numerous declines that your draft has had. AfC is effectively optional to you as the author, however due to the sort-of consensus the topic itself as had, I don't think moving it to mainspace was the best decision here. 11WB (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The draft had been declined five times as shown on the now redirect edit history (I am unable to link the history directly as it just redirects automatically to the mainspace article). However, this shows all the declines and their reasons plus comments left by reviewers. 11WB (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at only the final rejection, and the state of the article at that time. I don't see how the comment is all about it need multiple in-depth references when it contained both a major international newspaper and a well known print magazine. The rejection notes that there needs to be multiple references that are in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent of the subject. As it appears that those two references alone meet all those criteria, I struggle to see why this is the rejection reason - perhaps you could explain that? I'm afraid to see what errors were made in the earlier four rejections @11wallisb! I have no doubt this would survive at AFD. Sure, the article could be better - but it's a decent start that can be improved - perhaps with the 296 results I see at ProQuest for (Enderman Minecraft). Nfitz (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually about to sleep (I also have an unrelated migraine currently). I will have another look over everything at some point tomorrow, as right now I'm not sure I will be able to reply with the most thought through answer! 11WB (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Go sleep for sure, @11wallisb! Hopefully not too bad of a migraine; my daughter had a terrible one a few weeks ago, which turned to be a brain hemorrhage with life-threatening and -altering repercussions (mostly visual and audial). I kick myself that we didn't know more about migraines to check closer. So my condescending advice is that if it's a sudden very painful "thunderclap" type event, rather than the normal build-up - then go to the ER. Nfitz (talk) 02:08, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Cukie Gherkin. Hard to say ... angry, sarcastic, volatile, emotional ... so in many ways a completely normal teenager. No major body or verbal issues, but probably permanent visual field loss (may never drive again). Possibly permanently tone death. They won't start a full assessment for a couple of weeks. In many ways very lucky - she'd likely be dead or seriously impaired if it had been many other places in the brain. But she should still start an engineering degree - but probably a year late; a couple of weeks from now isn't probably the time for a 17-year old to move to another city where she known no one and start a programme that requires about 70+ hours a week of work ... that's about how much she's sleeping. I'm both very disappointed about the whole thing, but also ecstatic that she's recovered quickly and has relatively little damage - and heck is still alive; it was every parent's nightmare in the ER watching them simply trying to save her life - I'm just relieved we are here. She's angry though - fair enough. And more testing, and perhaps more brain surgery to come. Nfitz (talk) 07:04, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds really terrible. That said, I am still fully confident in everything I said and did about vetting the article. As I explained above, those sources were found wanting for various reasons, and the Times of India is a situational source usually taken with a grain of salt. Other people who vetted the article reached essentially the same conclusion. It was not, as you are stating, an "error". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:31, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
20 years I've been here, and never heard the term "situational source". Can you explain? Both looked in-depth to me. And the Times of India is one fo the largest and most significant English-language newspapers in the world - almost triple the New York Times printed circulation. I don't see situational source listed in the rejection note; nor do I see any attempt at explaining why two very good-looking sources that appear to meet the the 4 required things, don't meet them. The lack of simple and clear communication by those who do understand the system better, is disappointing. Nfitz (talk) 06:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are simply too many articles and too few volunteer editors to write a full treatise on notability every time a page is rejected simply because someone didn't read the relevant policies. People have the responsibility to research this for themselves. But people are more than willing to explain if asked, and I've never said to anyone "well, see it for yourself, I'm not telling". In this case the idea of a situational source is explained at WP:MREL, and is also called "marginally reliable". It is a source that is only usable in certain circumstances, but often doesn't count towards notability due to compromising factors like rampant promotional pieces or poor editorial quality. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:12, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree. At least for those are are inexperienced, newish editors (absolutely for frequent fliers). If one doesn't have time to do it properly, don't do it. And quite frankly, end this DRAFT experiment - I don't think it helps. That MREL flag is for paid advertising - which is marked as such. It has nothing to do with the reliability of stuff like this - which isn't paid advertising. It seems a bit disingenuous to use that as an excuse to discount such a well-known newspaper. I don't even know why the ToI gets this flag, rather than major papers I've seen do it in other English speaking countries. Yeah, perhaps they were first - but most have copied them. Nfitz (talk) 07:51, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, to do a bit of a reset here, I'm the last person to be gatekeeping when it comes to fictional character articles. I've written several, and one of them, Dracthyr, is currently at no consensus in AfD despite it being incredibly well sourced and by any metric a slam dunk of notability. I am NOT trying to gatekeep this, contrary to the claims. Believing something should be held to a higher standard is not the same thing as pooh-poohing it because it's "that fictional cruft again".
I do in fact believe that The Times of India is in this case a reliable source, the coverage is simply trivial. The content is insufficient to flesh out an article, as it simply describes how to fight the Enderman in combat. That is, at max, a sentence or two without violating WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE within the article. That is the main problem here, rather than how major the source is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:33, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - that makes more sense to me. However it's our article that needs to meet NOTGAMEAGUIDE. It doesn't stop a source that itself might not meet NOTGAMEGUIDE, invalid as meeting GNG. Nfitz (talk) 02:44, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think that there's a good start in there, though I would suggest not keeping it separate due to issues with sourcing, such as multiple unreliable sources being employed. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:06, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz, I appreciate your reply from last night and I'm sorry to hear about your daughter, that really is terrible to hear. I also should say it was inappropriate of me to mention a health problem in my message, especially on another editor's talk page. I apologise wholeheartedly for doing that.
To answer your question, I feel I should mention WP:THREE. Many reviewers at AfC use this (I personally don't). Basically, if there are many sources and all look questionable, it's reasonable to ask the author for the three they believe are the best. For the Enderman draft/article, you mentioned the Times of India and PC Gamer (that's only two but that's fine). For ToI, Zxcvbnm is 100% correct. Under WP:TIMESOFINDIA, it is considered WP:MREL. As for PC Gamer, it is a gaming magazine so I'm unaware exactly how they fact check news. They also write reviews on games, which would be the opinion of the writer not the magazine itself. If I saw this magazine being used as a reference, I would likely consider applying the [better source needed] tag to the inline citation or even [failed verification] - at least until a consensus was formed.
I agree with Zxcvbnm in the case of Enderman. AfC, despite maybe coming across quite harshly, is actually a very respectable process for ensuring well sourced articles make it onto the public-viewing project! 11WB (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PC Gamer is generally considered rather reliable as far as gaming sources go. The main problem is that a lot of the article essentially quotes messages posted by Notch, so I am concerned about a lack of significant coverage. Not every article by an RS is created equal, it's not an instant ticket to a significant coverage source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:33, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think that PC Gamer makes far more sense as a source in an Enderman article than The Times of India. 11WB (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I remain puzzled about the Times of India being questioned, given the area that's highlighted for concern has no relationship to this article. Still, I'd encourage the creator to add some more similar-like sources. With hundreds more article listed in ProQuest (odd, I only see about a hundred now ...), it shouldn't be difficult to find during the BEFORE process. I see that someone recently added an academic publication - https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3631672.3631685 - to the article; from a 2023 conference proceedings. Nfitz (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue regarding the draft suddenly being moved to mainspace is resolved, this was in fact done by @Alalch E.here. I will assume good faith, however I am unhappy with the potential tendentious editing they have been doing both on the draft, the recent AfD where they left this reply. Along with this recently being brought up on their talk page, I feel this editor could perhaps try to be a tad nicer to people.
As for the sources, @Newbamboohas shared a couple on my talk page for review, which I'm more than happy to do when I get the chance. I feel confident in saying Newbamboo has been acting in good faith and I wish to apologise for believing otherwise yesterday which led me to leaving this comment. The topic had been spread around to many different places and in that moment I had forgotten the rule of only commenting on the content, not the author. 11WB (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz, I also want to add I disagree with your notion that AfC has a tendency to gatekeep. This, even from my very short-term experience as a probationary reviewer, would set a very bad standard if that were in fact the case. I really don't think that making this point is helpful. I respect your opinion of course, however I definitely do not agree. 11WB (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that there's too much gatekeeping at AFC. AFD closing seems balanced to me. Part of the problem with the AFC experiment is the lack of something like DRV to keep the gatekeepers in check. Though AFD itself suffers from a lack of attendance, and seems to attract more if it's fair share of overenthusiastic sock-puppets (like the person who "merged" this article after the previous AFD) - why I don't know. Nfitz (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AfD closing is fine. Errors are made (including by me). Gatekeeping at AfC however, especially in this specific case of the Enderman draft, is simply not true. Four different reviewers all came to similar conclusions, three times in April and then twice in August (as shown here). 11WB (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should also add here that Newbamboo only began editing that draft in August, it had completely different active editors in the months before that. So those older reviews are on edits made by completely different authors to now. 11WB (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. Tendentious editing is a serious accusation, even if "potential". It is really one of the worst behaviors on Wikipedia. But I don't think you have a well-gauged sense for when and and how to use this term, so I won't feel slighted. I declined the draft submitted for review and redirected it to the at-that-time live article. Redirecting a draft to an existing article is normal. There is nothing wrong, concerning, or confusing in what I did there. Your description in the AfD of what happened with the article is very inaccurate. It is not supported by page history. The article was recreated by Newbamboo, blanked-and-redirected by Onel5969, and that was contested by a third editor, GZWDer, who was fully entitled to do that under the guideline provision (If editors cannot agree, the content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used, such as restoring the article and nominating the article for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion). At that point, no one was allowed to turn the page into a redirect again, yet that is what subsequently happened, multiple times. Such conduct on the part of those who repeatedly restored the redirect is inappropriate. That is not how it works. There is a community consensus about this issue. You then saying that AfC was "circumvented" really misses the mark, as AfC is irrelevant for those incidents in article space, because the AfC process, which is an optional process (and how does one "circumvent" an optional process to begin with), cannot resolve the dispute around contested blanking-and-redirecting. That dispute needs to resolve by permitting the article to stand and starting an AfD (unless one party has given up on reinstating the article; Newbamboo had given up, according to what they later said, and there is no evidence to the contrary, but that third editor, GZWDer, had not given up). That is the consensus of the community and is written down into the guideline. (I feel like you do not know this, and have the misconception that article creation in case of a controversy requires AfC to decide the issue—that's okay; it's fine not to know and correctly understand something, but, hopefully, now you have understood.) And if the article stands, there is no place for a draft, and consequently no place for AfC. That explains my actions, showing that they are normal and appropriate, and can in no way be construed as tendentious. Please think about this for a while if it isn't clear to you immediately, and if you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. If diffs would help you, I can provide them to you. Sincerely —Alalch E.17:03, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect Alalch, you have not read my message. I started that sentence by saying quite clearly, 'I will assume good faith', so no, I did not say that in the way you have just described. Secondly, I left the comment on that AfD erroneously, it was based off what I had been told here. I respected Zxcvbnm as a long time veteran editor with considerable experience. Policy wise, to my knowledge, you are correct. However, the way you have chosen to speak to me and others has considerable room for improvement. Wikipedia editors get on by being WP:CIVIL. I am not an adversary here, I was simply trying to find out what was going on yesterday. Just for due diligence, I did actually consult the Bushranger on the whole situation and they gave their opinion, despite being involved. 11WB (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to respectfully walk away from this situation now, as I feel that from a policy and process standpoint, it has been resolved already. This has been a learning opportunity for me and I'll take the opportunity to thank those who have respectfully helped me understand and learn what has happened here! (My talk page is open to anyone who has any issues with me specifically that they feel the need to address. I respect Zxcvbnm so I will not continue this discussion on their talk page!) 11WB (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Bazaar wiki page
Sorry if this isnt the appropriate way to do things, i am new to writing on Wikipedia and am trying to learn.
A game i am passionate about and part of their community called "the bazaar" has no wiki page.
I asked about it some time back and got sent a draft by another community member.
I went ahead and cleaned it up, kept updating it but your rejection of the submission from late 2024 stayed. as the only touchpoint since.
It says that the game is most likely not notable, the have had from what i could tell about 100k daily active players and now also are on steam where they are averaging another 6k concurrent players.
If you were to aid me in trying to get any of this right, it would be great.
Thanks a lot in advance and thanks a lot for the work you do on Wikipedia!
@Fnoing: First of all, since you are a totally new editor I'm going to assume you are here from something related to the game. You MUST declare any WP:COI or paid editing you are doing on behalf of the game (being a developer or staff member is still considered "paid editing").
That does not mean the game page is disallowed from being created, and I believe the notability situation changed drastically since it was rejected in 2024. The IGN and TheGamer sources are solid, but my main reservation is that while there are a ton of PCGamesN articles, they all oddly reek of paid promotion and really wouldn't be out of place on the developers' site. Nevertheless, this seems to be independent to the ones by Ken Allsop, and the Ed Smith article here seems far less promotional.
I'd say that the article faces some issues before it can be approved, although it does seem notable at this stage. It requires a reception section, and it needs coverage of the monetization policy for which there was a major negative backlash. It must be unbiased and cannot omit problems with the game, as Wikipedia is not an advertising tool and must be unvarnished truth. Any promotional language such as "The Bazaar is a fast-paced multiplayer roguelike" (fast-paced is an opinion rather than a fact) must be modified or removed, with the exception of quotes from outside articles that express opinions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:12, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Justification for name change for Peak game intro
Hey, in this edit: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peak_(video_game)&oldid=1296616599 ), you write that the name of the video game PEAK is "Peak" but is stylized as PEAK. That's incorrect. The name of the game is itself PEAK - all materials for the game write it fully capitalized, and even the internal metadata for the game refers to it as PEAK. The game is not called "Peak". Unless you have a source that says otherwise but I couldn't find it.
@Moire9: See WP:ALLCAPS. Unless PEAK is an acronym, it's required to treat it like "Peak" in the lede and then explain that the name is stylized in capitals. This is because it's extremely common for people to stylize trademarks in all caps to grab attention, but it can confuse readers of the encyclopedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:29, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's unfortunate. Thanks for the clarification.
After seeing Master Sword, I wondered if Cloud and Zack's Buster Sword could have an article since there is a lot of marketing involving it but couldn't find much critical commentary over it other than https://www.redbull.com/za-en/10-best-weapons-in-gaming While we have a lot of creation from Cloud's article, the Fusion Swords he wields in Advent Children could also be included since Nomura also made some commentary about how Fusion Swords was the successor of the Buster Sword. This is just me throwing ideas. In case you find useful critical reception, I might give it a try. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this close, "Oppose arguments had a convincing argument that the common name is the current one and thus POVNAME applies even if the proposed name is more neutral." Did you mean to say COMMONNAME applies? UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you PLEASE show me where merging that list resulted in a loss of any important information especially given the series article is barely even an article? It fit neatly inside of it, and what's already on the list should probably be trimmed down further as these are not insanely complex characters nor were they received as such. There's no development info on the list, no reception (at most, Fulgore has some that isn't trivial, and Orchid's been spun out). It's going to have overlap with the series article as is. And it's been that way for decades.
We have over 100 character lists, many in similar shape. At some point do we just not try to fix them? Because that's the end result you're going to get. Either we be bold and try to do something with the weakest ones, or just keep sweeping crap under a rug. Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article very clearly passes WP:LISTN, with numerous articles about Killer Instinct's character roster. There is zero rationale to merge the article unless (a) you weren't aware of that, which is failure of WP:BEFORE, or (b) you didn't care to improve it, which is overzealous deletion. Both are bad. I am usually of the belief that WP:POTENTIAL is what should determine if an article stays or gets merged. Simply saying "the article is trash right now" is never a good argument if it theoretically could be made into a viable page. Yes, I am aware it hasn't been improved for years. But nobody's saying you can't be the one to improve it, rather than merging it. You clearly care enough to mess with it at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:01, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because most actual reception I could find for the cast overall will overlap with the series article. A lot of times, you never seem to consider if something should be spun out, just could. That's the problem with POTENTIAL: if you're citing the same sources between two separate articles, and one of those is already small, and the other really bloated, you're splitting up information for the sake of it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see how a merge discussion can possibly be a bad thing here. If it's really an overlap, then people will !vote to merge. BLAR is something to use sparingly on highly uncontroversial articles, not a bludgeon to remove major pages. I'm not saying you are wrong, but a discussion is clearly merited here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll relent for now and look into it later. Right now opened a discussion on WT:VG about possibly expanding the List-assessment scale. I do feel overall that's our weakest part, and breaking things up will make it easier to do bigger discussions and assess the quality of what we're dealing with, possibly encourage better editorial approaches towards the lists as a result that aren't as viable with just the List/Featured List scale.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
admittedly, this is one of the things even i have to recommend avoiding. nothing demands, guarantees, or a third verb of your choice that wp:potential actually apply. someone could find sources that don't overlap (as kfm mentioned hasn't seen success here), but that doesn't mean they will, or that if sources are found, someone will work it into an article. lenora (you know, that normal type leader from pokémon bw) has potential, as sources were already found... but no one really did anything with them, so what? would we just have a stub for if someone wants to expand it someday maybe probably?
for the ki list in particular, the current state is really not good (15 usable sources out of 51, none really useful for a character list, most already in other articles, list full of cruft on top of that). i'll try looking for sources in a while, but if i find nothing usable (really likely that'll be the case), i'm not gonna open a merge discussion (as that's already happened), i'm taking it to afd to have it "formally" redirected (which is saying a lot considering my usual opposition to taking blars to afd) consarn(grave)(obituary)13:49, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
alright, done looking
below are the characters i've found sources for
arbiter (some info at arbiter (halo)) (i actually found a lot of sources for this one)
chief thunder (found a fair bit of info, though it's more suggestive that he's notable enough for his own article)
rash (only one seemingly good source, though)
spinal (maybe, the one source i found was about the ost using human bones...)
tj combo (seemingly developed in around 6 weeks. again, though, only one source about that)
and below are the sources i found that i think could be usable for a list and not just shoved into the games' articles
