User talk:Zxcvbnm

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dōkyūsei 2

Hello, Zxcvbnm,

I don't think this discussion qualified for a SNOW closure. Typical cases I have seen close as SNOW Keeps have around 8-12 Keep votes and no Deletes. This discussion had only 4 editors arguing for Keeping this article so it falls short. I'm not going to revert your closure because I'm pretty sure that this article would have been Kept any way if the discussion had run a full 7 days and reverting the closure would be pointless bureaucracy. But you should raise the bar on what you believe qualifies as a SNOW, it's more than 4 votes of support. This distinction can become an issue if the closure is contested and is brought to Wikipedia:Deletion review which can be an unpleasant experience, not only for admins but also for NACs. I appreciate you helping as an uninvolved editor but be sure you are familiar with Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. Thank you and have a great weekend. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I would have !voted Keep if I did not close the discussion, so that technically makes 5 people. But I get it, the threshold is way higher than I assume. I will let an admin close any AfD discussion because I rarely see any get to 8+ keep votes in the video game realm unless it's a troll attempt... ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding AfDs

I am taking this discussion here, as in retrospect I feel the AfD itself isn't the best avenue to discuss it now that I'm not blowing a fuse. But to be frank, you have become seen as a "boogeyman" of sorts when it comes to working on character articles, and I seriously don't think that's your intention. But we have reached a point where long established editors will say in other outlets such as discord they worry you may AfD a subject they've started on and have even been discouraged from approaching a subject entirely because "Zx will probably AfD it and I don't need that stress." And we should not be dreading PresN's new article list to bring such upon works as if you're some Eye of Sauron.

That's ultimately detrimental to a project, especially when editors feel they have produced something high quality that meets wikipedia's standards they're familiar with, and your approach may come across as seeing it as low. I do feel AfD and even BLAR-ing have a place on wikipedia as valuable tools. But if we're seeing established editors will multiple works under their belt are working on a subject shouldn't we be having a discussion first, not to "feel out an AfD" but to make sure neither party is looking at a topic wrong? This has been an ongoing subject, and I'm definitely trying to approach this as one longtime editor to another, feeling these are common courtesies you would expect. Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

If you really think I'm a bogeyman, than I can certainly leave. But, I'm not sure if you really want that. Like a CEO who fires anyone who disagrees with them, being surrounded by an echo chamber isn't great when it comes to decision making.

Still, I get that my sudden AfDs have caused no small amount of consternation. I will keep that in mind and try to discuss first to make sure I'm not missing something. At the very least it would strengthen my argument were I to still do one. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that. By no means do I want you to leave the project, and while we don't always see eye to eye you do some good work of your own.

Right now project wise we're trying to get a lot of Pokemon articles done to figure out an eventual Good Topic for the things, even with the aforementioned sense of caution. No sense in doing one only to get sideswiped by some article we didn't fully research after all and then having to rush to GAN, after all. And given I put together three articles here recently off found sources (Meltan, Pinsir and Kleavor) it's valid to worry.

How are you feeling about what's out there right now? Should there be any concerns?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Pinsir - its notability is unclear to me, though I think Beckett's Guide and IGN are the strongest sources. Even if I randomly saw it, I wouldn't have AfD'd it without asking, especially because it's such an older Pokemon. However, do you think there is another source on their level that isn't a listicle? I'm not convinced the one about "Kawaii Pinsir", while funny, is actually SIGCOV.

Meltan - despite relying a lot on content farm sources, I'd probably give it a "weak keep" if it were ever AfD'd. I do feel like it toes the line of WP:INDISCRIMINATE due to it not having an appearance as a character with a personality, as with some other Poke's such as Butterfree. But the Variety article helps with that by establishing some importance to the game's popularity.

P.S. I wasn't aware of the Good Topic push so I can see why it would have angered you. I'll keep that in mind when I see many Pokemon articles being created. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate it. Regarding Kawaii Pinsir, I think that one's just in the body, I agree it's not really SIGCOV so I avoided it for reception. But you do feel the Taiwanese website and The Mainichi don't work? The latter is basically Japan's Washington Post, complete with me having to buy a subscription just to read it to cite.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

With regards to the Taiwanese website, do you mean ZhaiZhai News? Because it seems very tiny...

You'd have to demonstrate the contents of The Mainichi because it could be the make or break one here. It's literally impossible to tell from the blurb. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Fair on ZhaiZhai. As for the Mainichi, that one's a big hard to archive or show because of the paywall. Unlike say the Washington Post or Wired it completely hides most of the article unless you're logged in.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Randomly noticed topic via (talk page stalker), but if I may... you can always use the |quote= parameter in a citation, and hopefully people WP:AGF. Regarding the paid access to Mainichi Shimbun more specifically, though, consider using PressReader. Your local library may provide digital access with just a library card. You'd have to know the date of the issue (assuming it's published in the actual newspaper) to find the article, though. I'm not sure of the newspaper-specific search function capabilities provided. 2pou (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver 1 & 2 Remastered

Hi Zxcvbnm. Let me know what you have in mind as far as "enough to justify a separate standalone article on the topic" here. Seems comparable in scope to that of Tomb Raider IV–VI Remastered from the same developers, currently uncontested. Thanks LoK Wiki (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I also think that Tomb Raider IV–VI Remastered is not enough for a standalone article. I'm not the designated article patroller or merger though, so I may decide to take on one article and not another. You can't just point at a newly created, also unsuitable article and say "well they made it so mine must be fine". That's not how it works, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there a designated article patroller or merger to refer to? Coherency is useful, if you prefer to cast it along the lines of "well they made it so neither must be fine". LoK Wiki (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, there is New Page Patrol, but they don't really check for whether a page overlaps with another page. So I think what I meant to say is, "it's best to understand what should and shouldn't be there and why" rather than pointing at some other page that didn't happen to be merged (yet). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

My Draft about Backyard Baseball 2001

Thank you for giving me suggestions on reliable sources for reviews! I kept looking for some and I was so desperate to get the page submitted because of the acceptance of the Backyard Baseball page and the fact that Backyard Baseball 2001 is getting released on Steam. When I didn't find any reliable sources for reviews, I kind of gave up. Well, I'll keep working on my draft page to make sure it's acceptable to Wikipedia's standards and thank you for correcting my mistakes. 74.132.195.94 (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

No problem. I legit want to see articles pass, but if it lacks the right sources, it might just end up deleted, so it's best to make sure everything is up to par beforehand such that it has zero chance of being removed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. 74.132.195.94 (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)