User talk:Zxcvbnm

Romhacking.net

It is extremely rude to ruin people's hard work and redirect their stubs to other pages just because you don't know enough about a subject to see its relevance. Use the appropriate templates instead of replacing the full contents articles. -- Beqwk (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Beqwk: There is nothing rude about it, as I got consensus to redirect it here. That consensus does not have to include the article creator since you don't own any of your contributions. Please familiarize yourself with notability policy before making pages or they will likely be deleted or redirected in the same way. There's also WP:AFC if you want to avoid situations such as this. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I will also add that with the new sources the article may be safe. But those didn't exist when you first created it. You should endeavor to add such sources when it's created and not expect people to find them for you. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Feedback on drafts

Hey dude! I'm the guy who wrote the Bendy in Nightmare Run article, and i just noticed thst niche titles sre in your area of interest. With Bendy Run being one, i would like to gain feedback on how to make articles on these kinds of niche video game topics since it's usually hard to find media coverage or critic reviews about them. Best regards! OliDaHoli (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@OliDaHoli: I tend to direct people to WP:AKON when people ask "hey, how does it become notable". In some cases the article just will never be notable enough, like many niche topics. It only has 2 full reviews from reliable sources, and the third one hinges on the Common Sense Media review as the others are from unreliable sources. Common Sense Media is very basic, and could fall under trivial coverage. Usually the bar is 3 full reviews to establish notability. That's why I said it's borderline, and you should probably just expand its section in the series article and move on to topics with more coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, i see. Hopefully i have 2 more reviews that may fit the criteria to establish notability. If it is not notable i will expand the series article. Again, best regards! OliDaHoli (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I will make sure to double-check for reliability though. OliDaHoli (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I may have a third one but i am not sure if these sources fit the criteria: TheGWW, NewsReports and Dreager1 (which i do not trust from first looks). So far TheGWW looks the most promising. OliDaHoli (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@OliDaHoli: TheGWW: Doesn't seem reliable. I've literally never seen it used before as a source, and it doesn't list any editors. My guess is that the others are not reliable either. Again, I am speaking from experience that it should probably not be a page. Just "let it go", focus on improving its section in the series article, and move on to a different title that got more coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I did say i will proofcheck every website and submit a final time if one is found to be reliable. Since you didn't use theGWW i think you wouldn't know if it is reliable, which i agree with from first glance it doesn't seem reliable

I will not do that today, i'm no rusher, but this is just being 100% sure before i completely abandon the article.

Sorry if i seem stubborn. OliDaHoli (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Oops think i read that wrong, you've never seen it used as a source. Sorry OliDaHoli (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Warcraft Emberthal.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Warcraft Emberthal.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 00:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Can I Play That?, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Exposé.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Tables and games reception sections

Please note WP:PROSE this encyclopedia is supposed to be text first, tables are supplementary.

This principle is specifically reiterated in WP:VGREC which explains {{Video game ratings}} "This template is not required. It supplements the reception section; it does not replace it."
Please also note "Every single-site review source should be used within the reception section. The reviews table supports the text. It is not to replicate the function of external review aggregators."

You can add tables if you want but please do not remove article text as you did in your recent edit.(diff) If you want to expand the table make sure to first expand the article text. -- 109.77.197.194 (talk) 04:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are citing VGREC as supporting your point when it says "For example, avoid scores and statistics in prose, which are hard for the reader to parse and often impart little qualitative information. These scores should be limited to the Video game reviews template, if present." It appears to disprove your point rather than prove it... ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't realized the guidelines seem to contradict themselves. The preceding sentence to the one you mentioned even says "Including the number of reviews that are computed to create the review aggregator score can be helpful" because a high Metacritic score based on a small number of reviews is obviously not as significant as a score based on a larger sample of reviews. (I've seen some editors hiding the review number count in a footnote, but that seems like the worst of both worlds, either this information is context worth showing to readers or it isn't). It would seem as if the items higher in the list might take precedence over items lower on the list. In typical Wikipedia fashion the guideline seems to be saying include some detail but not too much detail and we're supposed to guess where the middle is supposed to be. (i.e. don't delete Metacritic from the prose entirely as you did, but probably less of the platform specific detail that I restored.)

Nonetheless WP:PROSE is project wide guideline, and prose is supposed to come first "Articles are intended to consist primarily of prose". -- 109.77.196.205 (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems like you have an issue with the policy, but I am only following it. You should go to WP:VG if you want to argue the policy is wrong, not me as I did not have a hand in writing it. If it were up to me, scores would be usable in prose as I don't think it's "confusing" for a general audience, but as it is, the video game reviews box has to be used if one wants to put scores in an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)