User talk:Zxcvbnm

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)

Notability of Fundamental Paper Education

This is a super random question, but have you heard this... uh, thingamablob known as "Fundamental Paper Education." It is very likely not notable for Wikipedia, neither is the viral video "Basics in Behavior" that started it. It's the same kind of conflict with Battle For Dream Island, one of the most ever declined subjects on Wikipedia. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 03:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I have seen it submitted for AfC a number of times, and I am pretty sure I declined it for non-notability. I know it exists but there is zero sign it's actually notable at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

BLUDGEON

Per your talk page comments at Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire, I figured I'd just ask you this here directly than on the talk page so as to avoid any confusion with my intentions. Though I disagree with your assessment of my actions as BLUDGEONING, I do understand that this may end up being a point of confusion in the future should I keep my current behavior up. As a result, would you be willing to provide advice in terms of my argumentation style in order to improve on this? While you're the only one who's acknowledged it so far, I figure it may be better to just try and nip this in the bud now so as to make sure it doesn't become a problem later. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

From what I've seen, your replies are often incredibly long, sometimes multiple times as long as what you're responding to. This might be not be your intent, but it comes off as trying to force your opinion by arguing the person into capitulation. I wouldn't want to engage, because I'd probably get bombarded with another textual wall, but the sheer size disparity makes my argument seem weak in comparison even if it's more powerful. I tend to avoid replying to most people in nominations I do, unless I feel they have made an abject error I have to correct. Even then, I try to be as brief as possible so it feels like a correction rather than attempting to override their views.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rules lawyer (2nd nomination), a nomination I made that is still going on and you are welcome to contribute to. Right now it's split between Merge and Keep but my responses were rather short and literally only to point out something I believe was incorrect, such as the lack of a policy based reason for keeping.

In your response to Oinkers in the Ruby and Sapphire discussion, I think saying something like "multiple reviewers said the game was too similar to bother buying, so please state the major changes that will merit an article" would be equally as effective in far less text. Though if he does then answer with things that have merit, even that could potentially backfire. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm I tend to give long answers primarily because I wish to address multiple points of a discussion and make sure nothing is misconstrued with my own. I see your point, though, that it seems imposing. I do worry shorter answers may result in ignorance to part of an argument, which may backfire or lead to a more drawn-out discussion, which is primarily why I write longer. Using the current merge discussion as an example, I feel strongly that the plot and gameplay are not large enough to warrant the page split, but I worry that if I make that point shorter, it will lead to confusion as to exactly what I'm arguing. Do you have any advice for how to shorten messages while still making sure I don't cause further confusion in a debate? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I guess you could try to anticipate potential counterarguments and pre-empt them in the nomination rather than having to explain after the fact?

"Oppose because I don't agree it's the same game" is probably the most predictable counterargument there is. The evidence presented to the contrary, "the game has identical plot and gameplay to Ruby and Sapphire", is outright false. The plot is different, and so is the gameplay in some ways. There needed to be a more indepth analysis of the similarities and differences than vague and inaccurate assertions being thrown out to justify a merge, which you had already mocked up, making it feel like you were looking more for a rubber-stamp than consensus. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm Y'know, I somehow hadn't actually considered that this was how my argument was actually coming out. I thought I had covered my points concisely, but looking back, you're definitely right in that I didn't clarify my points well enough. Would you suggest leaving some form of clarifying comment and then stepping back from that discussion to avoid overstepping my stay? In terms of that discussion, at least, I do want to avoid stepping into BLUDGEON territory, so I do want to check with you if you feel that is too much, or if I should just let the discussion run its course.

A sort of related question: I have seen similar kinds of "clarification comments" on other discussions, typically after several oppose votes, which outline the nom's position without going into individual replies. Would you suggest trying to use those while more sparingly utilizing individual replies, in the future?

As an aside, thank you for the advice thus far. I do apologize if I've caused some problems with both this and the current merge discussion, but I do greatly appreciate you pointing out how best to improve on these problems.

Edit for clarity since I realize I forgot to respond to this: I don't intend to make it seem like I'm looking for a stamp or anything with the visualizers, as I intend only to use them in cases where I feel a visual benefits a complicated merge. What would you suggest in this regard? I feel they're helpful but I don't want to make my points seem more antagonistic by using them.

Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem with a mockup at all, it definitely helps, I think it's just a factor of my issues with the rest of the nomination. If you want my full thoughts, I'll go over it sentence by sentence to explain my reasoning:

In a similar case to the merge discussion for Pokémon Sword and Shield Expansion Pass, these two articles have considerable overlap.

This immediately compares it to a different subject that may not even be similar. Sword and Shield Expansion Pass is not a totally separate "remaster" like Emerald is, and is only tacked on to the original title as an additional DLC.

Outside of some release information and some minor expansions on specific elements, the game has identical plot and gameplay to Ruby and Sapphire, with both of these elements being better covered at the main article.

As I said, the plot and gameplay, while similar, are not identical. I could also call Uncharted 2 similar to Uncharted 3 with gameplay besides a few minor changes, but they have their own articles.

In a similar vein to Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow, Emerald can easily be covered at the Ruby and Sapphire article...

This makes it about whether it COULD be covered rather than whether it SHOULD be covered there, which is the intent of the discussion. Many things can easily be talked about in other articles, but merging wouldn't necessarily be warranted. The arguments you made beforehand about WHY are not very strong, first comparing it to an article about an expansion, not a separate game, and then something misleading.

I believe these articles are better off merged

You never explain why exactly this wouldn't be just moving around deck chairs. How is the reader confused heavily by the status quo, exactly? Is there something in the Emerald article that can throw people off? I think it's pretty stable and isn't broken. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm so you would suggest sort of re-emphasizing the exact points to have a stronger argument? (I.e, gameplay is not that different because so and such...) I intended to use the comparisons to show precedence to my points, though in the way you're phrasing it, perhaps taking more direct examples would benefit that? (Yellow was merged because so and such, and Emerald suffers from the exact same problems...)

Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)