User talk:Zxcvbnm

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist and topic subscriptions to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

More sources for Space Station Simulator

[edit]

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)[reply]

@Timur9008: I added them to the talk page. If I ever feel like expanding it more, I will take a look. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon species

[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
I'll see if I can take another look for those, especially Gardevoir. Thank you so much for your input! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 22 § Mythological stuff to legendary stuff

[edit]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 22 § Mythological stuff to legendary stuff on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BlasterOfHouses (HouseBlaster's alt • talk • he/they) 03:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ladder scene for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ladder scene is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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.

λ NegativeMP1 01:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Draft:I See Red (game) submission

[edit]

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.

Let me know what you think! Thanks. AgusTrobajo (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Double vote

[edit]

Just an FYI, it looks like you mistakenly double voted at Talk:Boxing_Gloves_(film). Cheers, Mdewman6 (talk) 01:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad, I got rid of it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]