User talk:Zxcvbnm

Your GA nomination of Kat (Gravity Rush)

The article Kat (Gravity Rush) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Kat (Gravity Rush) and Talk:Kat (Gravity Rush)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kat (Gravity Rush)

The article Kat (Gravity Rush) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kat (Gravity Rush) for comments about the article, and Talk:Kat (Gravity Rush)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Bonfire (Dark Souls) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bonfire (Dark Souls) 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/Bonfire (Dark Souls) 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.

silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 23:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Thrive (Video Game)

187.127.199.34 (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Just so you know, I don't think you're gonna get much of an answer about this without context for what exactly you're asking about or requesting for this? But I think that there's a pretty clear reason why the draft was declined (a lack of reliable sources) and that's something that (assuming the sources do indeed exist) you'd probably be able to fix better than anyone else, as someone clearly invested in the topic. So my suggestion is to try to find some such sources if you think any are out there. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 13:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2B (Nier: Automata)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2B (Nier: Automata) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Shooterwalker -- Shooterwalker (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Google Ngram Viewer

I don't use Google ngram much so I didn't at first register the problem with your comment at Talk:Mpox: "Mpox does not even register on Google Ngrams as a name used by anyone". I've since checked it and the Wikipedia article Google Ngram Viewer and found that their corpus of text only goes up to 2019. Something to bear in mind, particularly for WP:NAMECHANGES issues. The name "mpox" was only invented and proposed late 2022. -- Colin°^Talk 14:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Significant Coverage

I've responded to your comment regarding significant coverage for the article, and fixed the problem found. Please review once you get the chance, thank you. TheDonquavious (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@TheDonquavious: While you're right, that article is technically a while after the event took place, it does not seem like it contains "further analysis or discussion", as WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE states. In other words it doesn't seem like an article actually written from a future perspective - just one published on a time delay, but written at the time of the incident. As you can probably see, 99% of the relevant sources were from a few days after the incident.

The only thing I could find from an ACTUAL future perspective was this article, about a parody mod someone made based on the event. It might qualify as continued coverage since it does in fact mention what happened after the event for a paragraph or two. I'd still have a bit of trepidation, but if you add that source to the article I feel like it could withstand AfD, weakly. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I would also see about removing any redundant sources. If a source does not offer any new information that was not given by a previous source, it should be removed. Articles should use the least sources possible, but those of the highest quality. Otherwise it's WP:REFBOMBing. Notable articles stand on the strength of the sources, not the sheer amount of them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for that info, I added that article as a citation. I removed any redundant citations as well, I will definitely keep that in mind for the future. Thank you for all your help. TheDonquavious (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Planetoids

i was bold, i took this as consensus (although i assumed my change was uncontroversial), and you reverted, so now let's discuss the matter. (The last link was a joke. Doesn't matter, just trying to be friendly.)

If you look at the disambiguation page i made, you'll see these two planetoids not previously acknowledged by the hatnote on the minor planet article. Given that you kept the disambiguation for Planetoid (comics), i'm not sure you excluded the others deliberately (although if you did i'd like to know why), but as you can see, disambiguating them all without a dedicated disambiguation page gets a little messy up top? How would you feel about [planetoid] as a redirect to [minor planet], with a hatnote for [planetoid (disambiguation)]?

--173.67.42.107 (talk) 06:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@173.67.42.107: I don't think there is consensus that those other definitions are typical redirects for planetoid.

I think rather than debating with me, there should be a discussion opened up on Talk:Minor planet about this instead, or a Wikiproject on the subject if there is one. I am simply reversing something I think is potentially controversial, but I'm not an astronomy expert. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Fallout 4 Deathclaw.png

Thanks for uploading File:Fallout 4 Deathclaw.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) 02:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2B (Nier: Automata)

The article 2B (Nier: Automata) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2B (Nier: Automata) for comments about the article, and Talk:2B (Nier: Automata)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Shooterwalker -- Shooterwalker (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Kat (Gravity Rush)

On 22 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kat (Gravity Rush), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that writer Naoko Sato was initially worried that the character Kat would come off as "too Japanese" for overseas audiences? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kat (Gravity Rush). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Kat (Gravity Rush)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 7,483 views (623.6 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of March 2023 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

2 GA articles

Do you think Astaroth (Soulcalibur) and especially Soma Cruz still notable or shall remained as GA? 2001:4455:69C:A700:C928:FEF4:E4BE:8299 (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I think they should probably be merged for failing WP:GNG, which would de facto remove their GA status. Simply removing the GA however wouldn't make sense since they're still well written. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Advice with reception

Thanks for that Sigma source. I have been cleaning up the article of X (Mega Man) after finding some sources that feel focused on the character like that comparison to Hayao Miyasaki or that source that calls him one of the earliest tragic hero characters in gaming. Still, I'm not sure how it should be kept around and wanted advice considering you made 2B GA. In it current status, the reception I envisiones involes the first paragraph as how he was receieved in the main series, the second one focuses on the spinoffs and the third one on other titles as well as his popularity in general when envisioning crossover games. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

BTW, similar to how I added more info from Ultron Sigma's reception, I guess the creation section could be benefitted for how the writers created such combination. Sadly, I haven't been able to find a single comment from the creators of Infinite involving Ultron Sigma's creation. The one that I did I find which helped to establish more notability is X as the developers specifically added X to Infinite because they noted he was popular in Western region contrasting the previous article from Marvel vs Capcom 3 where the developers acknowledged that Zero was more popular than X.Tintor2 (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tintor2: Right now, the reception section for X suffers from a massive amount of WP:REFBOMBing. It feels like it goes all over the place listing off every trivial mention of X rather than organizing it into cohesive paragraphs and is painful to read through. A majority of the sources used in the article are much more applicable to the series as a whole.

That leads me to believe that right now, it would be best to merge X (Mega Man) into Mega Man X and work on expanding the series article with those sources instead, for which they are much more fitting. The series article can discuss the game and its main character and would be a shoo-in for GA if expanded. Its current state is fairly pathetic. A lot of it is an ungainly chart that can become a timeline.

In terms of X himself, he's a lot tougher to search for sources for since his name is simply, "X", same as the series. It is clear, though, that right now his article has almost nothing that wouldn't be better off in the series page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll try rewriting like 2B especially after finding a scholar article centered around X's personality Tintor2 (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you'd need more than a single article, IMO. Maybe focus on redirecting to and improving his entry in List of Mega Man characters, which needs work. If enough coverage is demonstrated in the list, it can always be split again, but the article is extremely bloated with fancruft and can be pared down heavily. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)