MADiSONEdit

Hello! I saw that you unedited the title of the video game MADiSON and put it back in lowercase. I read the ALL CAPS article, but in this case it is not all caps as there is a letter that is not capitalized. It is a registered trademark. Everywhere the game is known as MADiSON (Steam, IGN, GOG, Playstation, Xbox, Nintendo). Even in its wikipedias of France and Spain it is accepted as 'MADiSON'. It is a case more similar to the 'iPhone' and 'iOS', which are an exception to the wikipedia rules as it is a brand and therefore begins with a lowercase letter. Another similar example is in GOG wikipedia, whose title is 'GOG.com', combining uppercase with lowercase. Another example that does not necessarily respect the rules of wikipedia is 'LinkedIn', which has the i in capital letters in the title, instead of being written only with the first initial L. It is not an acronym but being the name of an already established brand, it is respected. If the title is placed as 'Madison', it loses the reason and logic of the title. I wanted to create the page in English since it is being one of the most famous horror games of the year but I couldn't, although it already has official wikipedias in French and Spanish Nicolasferraro (talk) 08:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Nicolasferraro: "OS" stands for "operating system". "GOG" stands for "Good Old Games". Those are acronyms and would therefore be capitalized under the ALLCAPS policy. LinkedIn is CamelCase and would also fall under a different policy. The point is that when there are multiple capital letters in a row and they only have a purely stylistic function, they are not allowed in a title of an article. I don't know about the other language Wikipedias, but either they don't have the same policy, or they just weren't noticed and moved yet because there are fewer editors there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 10:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Oh I see. Thank you very much for taking the time to explain me!
If it's not a bother, can I ask you about the request that are made there?
Will someone eventually review it and assess if the game meets the requirements to have its own page?
I wanted to create the article in English, taking advantage of the fact that it is already in French and Spanish, but it does not allow me because I am new. I'm surprised that no one has created it since it's a game that came out countless times on IGN, on official Playstation channels, Eurogamer and a lot more official media that reviewed it. Nicolasferraro (talk) 10:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
@Nicolasferraro: Generally, it is by far the better option to create the page yourself - there is an Articles for Creation process you can use if you are unsure whether the ensuing article will pass Wikipedia standards, or if you are a new user on English Wiki (which you are). A good rule of thumb is to look at other articles for guidance on how it should be formatted and make sure all sources are reliable mainstream sources. Putting it in "Requests" tends to be a last resort if you are unwilling or unable to make it, and has a low chance of resulting in an article, though still possible. But since it is entirely volunteer, people are not obligated to make the Requests into pages. More likely, if someone has not bothered making it after numerous years it will just be removed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 10:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I have corrected the things you marked me and added more reliable sources as references. If you have a moment and can see if the draft is better now I would appreciate it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:MADiSON Nicolasferraro (talk) 14:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
@Nicolasferraro: Some issues I can see are - the "plot" section should be written in a more objective way. The way it is written sounds like an advertisement. The article needs a "reception" section. Check other video game articles for guidance on how to format it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 16:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
@Nicolasferraro: Also, if you are one of the game's developers or are working for them, you are required to disclose this on your userpage. See WP:PAID. This does not mean you cannot make the article as long as it is approved by AfC, and the game is notable enough that if the article is free from puffery and well-written, it can be approved, but you must show you are connected, period. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 16:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
@Nicolasferraro: Additionally, the image was not uploaded to the right place. I have added a tag to the page on Commons showing what you need to do if you are the copyright holder. If you are not, it should be removed from Commons and reuploaded under fair use at low resolution. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 16:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much for answering! First of all, no, I'm not from the development team nor do I work for them. They are simply two guys from my country, and this really is the first great Argentine game with a global impact and I think they deserve to have their wikipedia page.
I had taken the plot from its official page, but I've already changed it, I'm going to check everything else you told me to try to put everything correctly. Nicolasferraro (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
There (I think) I made the changes you had marked for me.
I don't know if anything else needs to be corrected. Nicolasferraro (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
@Nicolasferraro: A definite improvement, but the reception needs to be paraphrased, not directly block quoted. While it is fine to use some quotes, using direct quotes entirely can be called copyright infringement of the publication in question.
As an example, the sentence "MADiSON is consistent, and that’s one of the key factors in a great horror game. A lot of games tend to struggle with a sluggish second act after an incredible opener or fall off in the final act, but that does not happen here." could instead be paraphrased as "___ of Shacknews stated that MADiSON was consistent, unlike other horror games, whose quality diminished in their latter half". As you can see, it's restating the conclusion without directly quoting any of it.
Finally, I also think the "top 20 releases" part would go at the end of the Development section, maybe as part of the same paragraph saying its release date. Reception is purely for critical reception as far as I am aware. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 09:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
@Nicolasferraro: Also, since if you are not part of the developers you definitely do not have copyright to the uploaded image, what you should do is upload a totally new cover image and select "Upload a non-free file". The image should preferably be a PNG file that is as close to 100,000 pixels when height and width are multiplied without going over, and specify it is a video game cover art using the wizard. You can just leave the other image unused; it will be deleted after about a week. If you don't know how to use an image editor you can just upload a PNG image of any size, a bot will resize it anyway. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 09:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
It seems that someone else already accepted the creation of the article. It would not have been possible without your willingness to share knowledge and guide me during the process. Thank you very much for your infinite patience! Nicolasferraro (talk) 11:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
@Nicolasferraro: You are welcome. I ended up doing some copyediting regardless. I had to remove the part about user scores, as they are inadmissible on Wikipedia per WP:USERG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 12:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Further information on the decline of the Bidoof DraftEdit

Hello! As you have declined the Draft:Bidoof article, I would like to request further elaboration on how Bidoof does not meet notability guidelines. While the "Reception" is primarily based on articles more geeky in tone, that is simply a consequence of the Pokémon's meme status.

My personal understanding is that shorts such as Bidoof's Big Stand, as well as events like Bidoof Day, which both received significant news coverage, and with the case of Bidoof's Big Stand, significant, genuine, reviews, would give the Pokémon itself enough notability to warrant an article with all of these events and appearances in it. DecafPotato (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@DecafPotato: If you are confused, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bidoof which resulted in the original article's redirection for non-notability. The same issue stands today; nothing has changed. Even trusted admins in this discussion voted to redirect and creation protect the page, because its sources are so weak. To quote Masem in the AfD: "Honestly, the reception section is showing literally pulling every possible strand of weak, non-significant coverage (two or three sentence mentions from articles on broader topics) to try to make the character seem notable." This is what I believe as well, having a great deal of experience dealing with fictional topics. Generally speaking it is pretty difficult to find significant indepth coverage on individual Pokemon; despite being characters, they do not have motivations or character traits to analyze. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 20:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
So, If I am reading correctly, the notability issue stems from a lack of sources giving reviews of the Pokémon itself, and nothing else. I do agree with the statement of the Reception feeling like it is grasping at straws at times, which I will aim to fix, but may require simply waiting until more sources arise. But, my question with this, is that, other Pokémon, including ones notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article, such as Greninja, have reception like "Michael Derosa of Screen Rant called Greninja was one of the most popular Pokémon from the entire series", which seems even more pointless than reception shown in the draft (not trying to excuse the bad reception in the Bidoof draft, or pull a "but they did it first").
Additionally, the initial AfD debate happened prior to the release of Bidoof's Big Stand, which, as shown in the article, did receive reviews and news coverage to the extent that notability guidelines require. I do believe that this made Bidoof more notable, but I do understand that the current article may fail to capture that notability. Not, to, ironically, pull another Pokémon test, but stuff like Pokémon: The Arceus Chronicles has received less coverage than Bidoof's Big Stand, and is captured within articles like Pokémon Ultimate Journeys: The Series, which Bidoof's Big Stand is not (obviously the fact that it isn't referenced anywhere else doesn't magically provide notability out of thin air).
TL;DR: It seems notability issues are only from no direct reviews of the Pokémon. I agree the Reception section is very lacking, but other articles lacking good reception does not provide an argument for no notability when the reception is the only issue. The AfD discussion was prior to Bidoof's Big Stand, which received broad coverage and reviews, which I believe at least required a reassessment of notability.
I will continue to occasionally work on the draft in hopes of getting it eventually approved, so I was just asking for specific problems in notability to be fixed, since I believe the subject is notable enough, even though I may have done a poor job presenting that. Thank you for your time. DecafPotato (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
@DecafPotato: Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS when comparing other pages to Bidoof. Those other pages are, more than likely, not notable either, and would be merged or deleted if sent to AfD.
If there is coverage of Bidoof's Big Stand, this does not mean that the character portrayed within it is notable. Notability is not inherited from a work of media, and instead revolves around independent coverage of the character themselves. This is a tricky situation when it comes to Big Stand, since the Bidoof in that animation is in itself a separate character than Bidoof the species. Ultimately, there is coverage about the animation and the species, but those cannot be combined, and there is not enough of either alone for notability for either topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 23:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Are we really discussing Bidoof again? Considering the draft author seems to openly admit that the AFD is correct and there's no direct reception of the Pokemon, where else is there to go? AFD the rest. -- ferret (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
"Considering the draft author seems to openly admit that the AFD is correct"
I believed it was correct at the time, consensus can change.
"there's no direct reception of the Pokemon"
There is limited direct reception, as with many characters. Lack of reception does not necessarily mean lack of notability, they just tend to be correlated. The issue with Bidoof's notability, as I understand it, is not the lack of reception, the lack of reception is caused by limited notability aside from internet memes, which makes many reviews border on sarcasm, and outside of Bidoof's Big Stand, which, as discussed in other parts of this thread, is a strange case. DecafPotato (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I was definitely cautious of "What about article x", my point being that Greninja, for example, is notable (and for the record, was nominated for a redirect), but the reception is lacking.
I think how Big Stand contributes to the notability of the Pokémon itself is something that requires a larger discussion, as the Pokémon is not only prominently featured and undoubtedly the protagonist, and is put in the branding and is the center of the marketing, but as you said, it is separate from the Pokémon itself.
My main goal was for Bidoof's notability to be reevaluated after the release of Bidoof's Big Stand, and I believe that together they have enough notability, so the challenge comes in reasonably combining them, because, ultimately, you have more power over this situation than I do, and if you say they aren't notable on their own, I kind of have no choice but to respect that, even if I don't agree. So I guess I'll just let it sit in the back of my head for a bit and try to address some of the issues. DecafPotato (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Your argument is that Big Stand is the "tipping point" for notability. I simply do not agree. Not only is it a very short film, but the film got largely trivial coverage. In a world where entire movies based around a certain Pokemon species - Mewtwo, Lugia, etc. is not uncommon, it's a fairly small mention. I don't think the topic can be forced to be notable no matter how much one tries, and with the setting of the Pokemon games moving to a new region, it's fairly unlikely it will happen in the future after its meme day in the sun. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 03:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I think it is notable if combined with Big Stand, there are many examples of the notability guidelines being met even without a huge film, again, with stuff like Pokémon: Hisuian Snow or Pokémon: The Arceus Chronicles. And I don't necessarily understand what you mean by "trivial" coverage, nearly every major gaming outlet, and some film outlets, covered the short.
The problem lies in that notability is inherently subjective. Despite attempts to create guidelines, a subject's notability is still determined by consensus, with the guidelines simply being guidelines. I created the Draft to reassess Bidoof's notability, while also being simply done for fun.
So I think my path forward, if I want this draft to be accepted, is to… well, wait. Bidoof was last assessed for notability in July 2021, and now September 2022. If the pattern continues, which there is no guarantee, though it is likely, maybe after another few shorts or stuff like Bidoof Day, significant appearances, and dedicated reviews, it'll hit notability guidelines. So I guess I'll see you when/if I return to this upon further notability. DecafPotato (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
The difference between trivial and indepth is: is the coverage "hey, look at this thing! It may be neat, who knows!" or "I watched this thing, here are my opinions over numerous pages as to how good it is". The latter indicates that journalists took a lot more of their valuable time to assess the work of media and indicates it is somehow important.
It's fair if you want to wait. In my opinion, it may never be notable. No amount of trivial coverage can add up to significant coverage. But there is always some slim possibility it may happen if Nintendo decides to elevate Bidoof in a large way - though from what I can tell, they've probably moved on. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 04:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Crimson DragonEdit

Hi. Following on from your rescue of my cover art blunder, I was wondering if you'd like to look over the article as a whole. I got interested by chance through my involvement with Panzer Dragoon, and I've done an expansion of it. I was thinking of taking it to GA, but don't want to take it forward without some new eyes looking over it (I know I can end up missing glaring faults if I've worked extensively on something). If not, that's fine. Just a bit of a shot in the dark. ProtoDrake (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake: I wonder if XboxAchievements.com is a WP:RS. The source is used several times but is not listed in WP:VG/S. It has a staff page with an Editor in Chief but if you can get other sources for that info I'd suggest it. GameReactor was also listed as inconclusive, so that should likely not be used either. Finally, per WP:REPCITE you should not use citations multiple times in subsequent sentences unless each sentence is cited to a totally different source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 14:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry!Edit

I accidentally clicked rollback on one of your edits at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Now my page is hanging with a database error when I try to revert myself, but I wanted to let you know that this was a simple misclick and I'm sorry it was recorded as rolling back your edit. (In fact, I will search around and see if there is an easy way to disable the button for myself, since I almost never use rollback.) Best, Dekimasuよ! 05:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

RyujinxEdit

I noticed there was a draft version of a Ryujinx article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ryujinx) and updated it to include several upper tier publication notability sources. Can you re-review the article? Thanks! EmuFan (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Finding common groundEdit

Hey @Zxcvbnm — thanks for your comments on the RfC regarding Vector 2022. I'm trying to connect with some editors to better understand their perspective, and how they are weighing the tradeoffs here. I have a hunch that on a deeper level (beyond typography preferences, or disagreements about whitespace, etc.) we all share some common goals (we being the volunteer editors, and the product folks at the WMF). So, this is kind of an experimental conversation but, if you're willing to engage...from the data we see people searching more, and using the table of contents more to explore articles more deeply. We don't see any decline in any datapoints. Ultimately this means more readers will be exploring and reading more Wikipedia content with Vector 2022. If we zoom out and look a the big picture, is that not the overarching goal here? To share knowledge with the world and have them come engage with it? Logged-in users can customize the interface as they choose. If the data shows increased engagement from logged-out people, would that not be a win for the movement as a whole? I'm trying to understand if editors share this larger goal, and how to focus the conversation on that, versus smaller differences in aesthetic preferences.

Any response you are willing to offer is greatly appreciated. I am not trying to convince you of anything, I am rather trying to deepen my own understanding of how people are thinking about the tradeoffs here.

Thanks, AHollender (WMF) (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@AHollender (WMF): My disagreement is mostly aesthetic, but also with some of the menus. I actually support most of the technical side of things in terms of making people more engaged. I disagree with the people who think Vector 2010 is perfect and agree with the points that were laid out as to why it needs to be replaced. I just think the theme is visually lacking with the whitespace being part of that. I do not think that the site should be prioritized for usability at the complete and utter expense of visual uniqueness. At that point it looks like Google Docs, not a recognizable website. We don't want Wikipedia being indistinguishable from a generic screen reader.
Similarly from what others brought up I think if the amount of dead space is cut in half (not totally removed) it would be greatly improved. Wikiwand's layout is pretty much perfect for me in terms of how it is designed. However, I also dislike the total lack of what might be called look and feel. I am not asking for the UI to be transformed into a Geocities page, but some sort of color-based delineation of navigation and buttons would be best (as in the Vector 2010 skin, where the left side navigation is grey and has a 1px border with the page). The current menus just feel overly simple and unfinished. I also dislike the hamburger menu, as others have stated, it gives the page a mobile feel even on desktop. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 18:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I haven't participated in the RfC, but ZXCVBNM has actually highlighted most of my issues with Vector 2022, and why I'll stay on 2010. The whitespace really bothers me. I've read the rationale for it, but for me, it *hurts my eyes*. I use dark modes whenever I can, and empty spaces of bright colors (including white) are a distraction and literal eyesore. This also factors into my dislike of fixed width sites. I don't like the "mobilification", such as the hamburger menu or slide away side bars, with no visual delineation. There is, in my view, absolutely nothing worse today than clicking a mobile URL and having to get back to the desktop view. I'm also old and grumpy, so. -- ferret (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
@Zxcvbnm I really appreciate your response. Firstly let me say: I love how visually unique Wikipedia is. I appreciate the weird icons in infoboxes and ambox templates. I appreciate the use of brackets around certain buttons. I appreciate the unique aesthetics of Wikitext. I myself was reluctant to remove the gradients and light blue lines. I agree that focusing on the aesthetic aspect of the interface is interesting and important. I'm admittedly more of a functional/technical designer than a visual/aesthetic designer, but even still I spent a good deal of time thinking about the uniqueness of the interface, the presence of the Wikipedia "brand" within the interface, and the overall character/personality of the skin. I'm not sure if you participated in the fifth prototype feedback round — curious if you've seen the options I proposed here and here (both of which somewhat explore this question)?
I'm not sure if this answer will be satisfactory to you, but after considering this for quite some time where I came to is: the interface started out extremely simple (reference images). I believe it makes sense, after 22 years or so, to reset the aesthetics back to this minimalism, and in doing so allow the character to develop anew over time. I tried for months to figure out how to refine the Wikipedia aesthetic and capture it within the new skin. And I came up with a lot of visually interesting explorations. But I don't think that's the right approach. I think the aesthetic we have today ultimately evolved through functional changes that were made, and the same thing will happen again (but we will end up with something different, and unique).
Also, going back to what I was saying in the beginning of this comment, I think that the most aesthetically unique, and most beautiful, parts of Wikipedia are the content elements. Ambox templates, Infoboxes, user generated icons, etc. And by simplifying the interface we accentuate that stuff. In short: I'm not worried that people will start to mistake Wikipedia for Google Docs, or any other site. Though I appreciate that concern and don't want to discount the importance of brand recognition. AHollender (WMF) (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
@AHollender (WMF): No, I didn't participate in any feedback besides the RfC. I agree that it's not good to enact too much change away from the roots, but I feel like disregarding the borders introduced in the 2005 design is doing it a disservice. It was ultimately a net improvement as it directs the eye towards important parts of the site. The main example presented in the RfC was indeed one with a blank background. I can get behind example #9 much more, as I greatly prefer the border areas to have some separation from the article page proper.
I also greatly prefer retaining the original square-style logo, as the other variants feel either mobile-esque or, in the case of the faded version, I can't really see the rationale for hiding part of the classic Wikipedia logo.
As an additional suggestion for the ToC, I think Wikiwand does a nice thing with making the H1 titles serif fonts (similar to the article title) and larger than the subheaders and I would heavily support #3 or #5 design for the ToC that gives selected items a background. Right now, the ToC looks a bit too simplistic and it's just floating in the aether.
Of course this is all just my opinion, but hopefully it answered what it would take for me to potentially support it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 19:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Mope.ioEdit

I changed the references of the reception section of Draft:Mope.io after you initially declined it for "lack[ing] reviews from reliable sources" and added new sources, but you declined the draft again for the same reason. In what way are the sources unreliable for this article? 2001:8003:680C:3D01:DD10:390E:DC0A:14A8 (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

They are from sources that are either user generated (WP:USERG) or have been deemed unreliable by community consensus (WP:VG/S), or are trivial mentions that do not give the game itself significant coverage (the articles about Addicting Games, the company, arguably fall under WP:CORPDEPTH). Generally speaking, I think a bar that most modern video games should pass is getting at least 3 reliably sourced full reviews listed in Metacritic (although for obscure or artsy games, it may be in other assorted publications). Nevertheless, there is no evidence of that here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 05:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Fantastic DYKEdit

  A penguin for you!
Great DYK! It definitely was the first thing that caught my eye on the main page, not least because of the musician hilariously named "Soccer Mommy"... LOL. Never knew they held a concert on Club Penguin Rewritten of all places. That's a funny and interesting tidbit so great job. — That Coptic Guy (talk) 05:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)