This is an archive of past discussions with User:Zxcvbnm. 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.
Sorry for bothering, but I wanted to reach out as this is my first article: Draft:Hidden_City:_Hidden_Object_Adventure. You left a message: "Not seeing sufficient reviews to pass WP:GNG here." Could you kindly clarify if there are any reliable references in my list that could be used? Additionally, could you let me know how many good references are typically needed to pass the review? I frankly thought that the references I have are a good start for publishing the article.
Ask.com review doesn't count towards being an RS due to being AI generated. Most of the other ones are either unreliable or simply mention the game as a trivial mention. Usually, something like Metacritic is the place to go to search for significant coverage, but in this case it has very few reviews besides Softonic, which just isn't enough. Usually about 3 are needed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance! I've updated and resubmitted the article for review. I've added three additional sources from Metacritic, 148apps and Affärsvärlden business magazine. Could you please take a moment to review it? Really appreciate it! DaniKro (talk) 10:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Hi. Letting you know this as the creator of the article, and...for other reasons related to the Mana series. I did some expansion/tidying, and after consulting with other editors and having given suitable time, I've decided to take it through GAN. I'd be happy if you want to help or do further edits or whatever you would wish. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hello Zxcvbnm, I hope you are well. I recently added new sources detailing more real-world impact of Draft:Durrr Burger, and I was wondering if you could take a look? I believe there's now significant enough commentary made about Durrr Burger as a character from CNBC, Dot Esports, GamesRadar+, and additional real-world impact described by PCGamesN, Eurogamer, GameRevolution, The Verge, and others to pass both GNG and SIGCOV at this point. While the nature of the page is really silly (its a burger with a face) I really want to fight for it and all the work I put into making it. If possible, I would appreciate your support on its reintroduction to the main space Zxcvbnm, but let me know what you think 🙂 Johnson52415:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
It would probably be faster if you just posted here the links to whatever new source(es) you believe demonstrate SIGCOV that were not previously mentioned and how much coverage it gets in each source. Otherwise I have to check back and forth about all the sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
More sources for Space Station Simulator
Hi! :) I found more sources for Space Station Simulator you can use
BTW the game released in 1997 not 1998 (MobyGames editors got the date wrong) since reviews for this game existed as early as March 1997. Timur9008 (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
I've honestly been iffy on Galarian Corsola for a while now, since I made it during my earlier days of article creation. I'm letting the discussion run its course since I'm admittedly not too sure on it myself, but I figured it'd be valuable to get your input on this: Are there any other species articles you feel aren't up to snuff notability-wise right now? You tend to be more strict with notability than most, so I figured your thoughts would be helpful in determining what species may be lacking, or may need more done for them. Obviously this is a big ask, so if you don't want to, I'm not forcing you, but I'd greatly appreciate even simple comments on the matter, as someone who's trying to expand the quality content in the Pokémon WikiProject. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:52, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
@Pokelego999:Mawile in particular is making me very heavily skeptical of its notability. Its claim to passing GNG is rather weak, and it suffers the same problems as Galarian Corsola - WP:REFBOMBing and most coverage being trivial in nature. I am also very skeptical on Gardevoir for the same reasons. And yes it's quite a long article, but REFBOMBing does not really matter when it comes to GNG, only solid sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
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.
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.
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
Nahida draft
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
FYI, because you wondered why I didn't block that editor, I explained it here. Totally agree with was inappropriate, just hoping someone else takes care of it so it doesn't get messy. Thanks. Sergecross73msg me13:05, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
Okay, understood. Still I don't think people would've blamed you for it. At least, I sincerely hope they wouldn't. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Zxcvbnm — thanks for reviewing the draft. I’d appreciate clarification on the notability concern, since the current version cites multiple independent, reliable, and in-depth sources, including:
- Detailed acquisition coverage in Fortune (June 2024), covering the Uniswap Labs deal and CTG’s rise as a 24/7 crypto reality show: "Uniswap Labs acquires ‘Crypto: The Game’" by Niamh Rowe.
- A Variety Emmy preview (June 2025), naming Crypto: The Game as “one to watch” in the Emerging Media category and describing it as a viral sensation drawing global attention: [1]()
All coverage is secondary and independent, with no material sourced from the subject or affiliated parties, but if I’ve misunderstood any sourcing requirements or you recommend additional context, I’d appreciate the guidance, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HotPotato26 (talk • contribs)
The first article is definitely WP:SIGCOV. However, the rest are, in order: trivial announcement, trivial announcement, WP:PRIMARY source, primary source, trivial coverage. I am not seeing WP:GNG being passed here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the follow-up @Zxcvbnm. I’d love to clarify a couple points and welcome any further thoughts.
On the sourcing front: while I understand the caution around announcements and primary sources, I believe some of these merit a closer look as in-depth, independent coverage.
The Fortune piece isn't just a press release rehash. It includes commentary from both Uniswap and the CTG creators, contextualizes the acquisition in the broader crypto landscape, and draws comparisons to other emergent media formats.
The Axios piece includes original reporting on the Adidas x CTG NFT collaboration and situates the partnership in a broader trend of crypto-native brand activations.
The GoldDerby and Television Academy pieces are based on interviews, but they contain substantial editorial framing and analysis, and were published independently by reliable media outlets.
The Variety article offers editorial judgment by including CTG in its Emmy preview as a notable "one to watch" in the Emerging Media category. This feels more evaluative than trivial.
If these still don’t rise to WP:SIGCOV under your interpretation, I’m happy to refine further or seek out additional sources. Just hoping to ensure I’m aligned with the notability framework.
Unfortunately I can't say I agree with your characterization of any of the sources. Still, you are welcome to seek a second opinion, I'm just trying to objectively inform you of what the majority of editors will say in an AfD discussion.
My search for significant sources turned up nothing besides the aforementioned WIRED article, which, while good, doesn't fulfill the criteria on its own. If you want to look for more, be my guest, but it seems like this is a WP:TOOSOON situation, and you will have to wait for further coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:50, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, @Zxcvbnm — totally fair, and I appreciate the perspective. I still believe the coverage reflects notability beyond a single mention, particularly with the Wired, Fortune, Axios, and Emmy-related features, but I understand your view that it may not yet rise to the threshold for WP:GNG.
That said, I may seek a second opinion to help ensure a balanced read across the draft and sourcing. Either way, I’ll continue monitoring for broader coverage as the project evolves. HotPotato26 (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
Endless Mode is a part of AV Club and Paste magazine, so it should be a RS. That said this is definitely sigcov. Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm saying go for it. Gemma might be viable too but I've been holding off as I'm worried about SUSTAINED there.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
Proposed merging of Category:Male chefs
While merging is fine, you should have also put up the female chef categories for merging as well. You don't do one and not the other. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it!06:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
That's just my opinion for why I didn't nominate female chefs. If it turns out people don't find it defining either, that's no skin off my back. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Hi there, thank you for your close at Talk:2021 Tri-State tornado#Requested move 21 May 2025. I take no issue with your conclusion and this is not a challenge. I was wondering if you could clarify the meaning of this sentence: Not only is "Tri-State" usually capitalized in Google Ngrams, but the proposed formatting even more heavily implies a COMMONNAME that doesn't actually seem to exist. There was considerable opposition to the claim that it is usually capitalized in this context and it is not clear why retaining the capitalization is less suggestive of a "common name"—is this because "tornado" remains lowercase?
I know these things can become heated, and tone in writing often sounds harsher than intended, so I want to again emphasize that I am not challenging the outcome, merely seeking clarification. I hope this is put to bed now but in the event another editor reopens the discussion, I want to make sure I (and others) understand the closing rationale. Thanks again for closing, and for all your thoughtful contributions to the project. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk17:06, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
With regards to the common name part, I simply believe that "___ tornado of 2021" diverges enough from the typical naming scheme that it sounds like a name that was coined outside of Wikipedia, when there isn't actually one. The typical formatting on Wikipedia is "2021 ___ tornado", such as 2020 Monroe tornado, 2020 Jonesboro tornado, 2019 Havana tornado, etc. This would be the case regardless of capitalization, and I think people agreed it was suboptimal.
With regards to capitalization, it seems that Tri-State is often capitalized. One recent example is [5] here. That said, I think there was "no consensus" about the capitalization part. The closure was only to state that the original move request failed, but you are free to do another move request solely about capitalization, as it would count as something entirely different (if you can have a good argument that capitalization is wrong).
That said, I would heavily not recommend it unless you can confirm the page is notable and shouldn't be merged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Got it, thanks! I agree the rather grandiose "___ tornado of 2021" title suggests a true name and is out or step with other tornadoes. I disagree about the caps but I'm moving on—someone call a wellness check if I reopen this discussion! Cheers, --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk23:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for acting as closer in this discussion.
I do note that the decision to not move Grok is surprising. While RM discussions are not vote-counting, you have 8 editors + OP in favour of this, with 2 editors opposed. The proposed move also seems well-supported by the WP:NOPRIMARY and WP:DPT guidelines. Can you further explain why you believe this is "no consensus"? 162 etc. (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
The argument that the word has longterm significance was very strong, as it has existed for decades longer than the chatbot, and the counterarguments that the page should be moved either (a) offered no reasoning beside pure personal belief (see WP:NOTAVOTE), or (b) argued purely based on pageviews while not attempting to counter the argument that longterm significance should override pageviews.
That said, since it was no consensus, you are free to propose another move with a stronger argument solely for the word page to be moved. I did not want to lock off any further discussion about it, but the move proposed in that discussion was clearly a nonstarter. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
> The argument that the word has longterm significance was very strong, as it has existed for decades longer than the chatbot
This is actually not a strong argument at all. Per WP:DPT, "historical age is not determinative." The relative age of the two words should not be considered when determining the primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
All it means is that the historical age is not the be all end all of the discussion. "This thing is older!" should not immediately end the discussion, but it can still absolutely be considered when making a decision.
In any event, I'm not interested in debating this ad infinitum, so if you mean to contest the close you can, otherwise I have already stated my reasoning extremely clearly. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed that from the video game relation deletion discussion like 25+ PROD and AFD are from you. I don't think there is a limit, but I also don't know what the previous precedent on the number is. My concern is that it isn't feasible for someone from the inclusionist side to comment and we just get soft deletes on most. Regards IgelRM (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean by "from the inclusionist side". Are you implying that the deletions are ideologically motivated, i.e. because I am a "deletionist"? That is a strong accusation and would need some evidence. I am just cleaning up articles that have few to no sources and fail a WP:BEFORE, this is not about "deletionism".
If you have some evidence that I am ignoring valid sources for articles then I will definitely slow down and check even more carefully, but I am confident that every page I nominate is a GNG/NCORP failure. Given that I check thoroughly, I don't see a need to slow down unless I am clearly making an error. The idea that they all have to be vetted by "someone from the inclusionist side" makes no sense, that is just an impediment to cleaning up spam. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
I will also add that a soft delete is like that on purpose precisely for this reason. If you do find sources later, Undeletion exists and can be requested for any reason. However, it is the article creator's WP:BURDEN to demonstrate sources upfront. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply ideological motivation; I do believe that you are trying to go by current standards. From my observation, we are systemically going through many articles now that have been on WP for like 10+ years and weren't really questioned some years ago. So it felt like a larger cleanup that has started, which is what I meant with the "inclusionist" phrasing. IgelRM (talk) 07:34, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm admittedly not convinced by the new sources added to Dracthyr; most of them are still discussing it solely as an element of World of Warcraft: Dragonflight, which was the main argument getting AfD'd last time. There's nothing really independent of Dragonflight even now, and I feel it hasn't really addressed the AfD's concerns and the NOPAGE problem much. I wished to at least get your thoughts on this before any further discussion was held, but I personally do not feel the new article has addressed the concerns of the old one. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:33, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
There are now several sources talking about the race/class in War Within, so it's no longer solely limited to discussion about Dragonflight, like this article solely talking about the new War Within classes. Obviously, if it was only based on sources that reference War Within it wouldn't be near notable, but that wasn't the original concern, only that "more sources proving notability separate from the expansion are found". I believe said sources were indeed found and the argument that it overlaps with Dragonflight is more moot now that journalists are writing about use of the race in other expansions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dracthyr (2nd nomination) 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.
I just added the reception section, I think these two sources meet GNG[6][7], do you have any other comments? (I created the Chinese version of this article on the Chinese Wikipedia and passed the Good Article selection, I'm not sure if it's because the Chinese Wikipedia and the English Wikipedia have different standards) Newbamboo (talk) 10:24, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
Chinese wiki absolutely has different standards to the English wiki. That said, sources from any language are allowed if they're reliable.
Screen Rant and Collider are both considered an situational source due to Valnet ownership, unfortunately. They cannot be used to prove notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:45, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
VG247 - Reliable, but not significant coverage. Escapist - not significant, also it is just referencing the same article from VG247. PC Gamer - Possibly reliable/significant, though it does spend a lot of time quoting Notch. Bleeding Cool - seems like a glorified promotional piece, so not likely to be significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:55, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
I have reviewed the draft and have unfortunately had to decline it. I've left a comment at Draft:Enderman with my thoughts on the issues that are currently present. In regards to the above discussion, I think the sources are questionable and I would suggest improving these before considering resubmitting the draft! I wish the best to the author! 11WB (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Oberon Media
Friendly ping: as I believe is the process I undid the deletion proposal on the page and started the discussion on the talk page for:
