| Revision as of 10:14, 27 September 2024 editTheleekycauldron (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators43,740 editsm →RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review: typo!, replaced: keep, retain, or modify it → retain, modify, or discontinue itTag: AWB← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:36, 25 December 2024 edit undoClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,372,563 editsm Archiving 2 discussions to User talk:Zxcvbnm/Archive 8. (BOT) | ||
| (44 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown) | |||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| {{Usertalk}} | {{Usertalk}} | ||
| ==DYK for Feelie (Brave New World)== | |||
| ==Orphaned non-free image File:Warcraft Emberthal.png== | |||
| {{ivmbox | |||
| ] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (see ]). | |||
| |image = Updated DYK query.svg | |||
| |imagesize=40px | |||
| |text = On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that ] developed his "''']'''" in response to the emergence of "]"?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ]. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page <small>(], )</small>, and the hook may be added to ] 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 ]. | |||
| }}<!-- Template:UpdatedDYK --> ] ] 00:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Splitting content of Super Valis IV from Valis IV into its own article == | |||
| Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --] (]) 00:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Hey there! How are you doing? Look, i noticed that you were responsible for splitting content of SNES Dracula X into its own article. I want to suggest you splitting content of Super Valis IV that is in Valis IV into its own article, since both the PC Engine and SNES versions are entirely different games, kinda like what happened with Rondo of Blood and SNES Dracula X. I could do it if i knew how to split said content into its own stand-alone article so i figured why not ask for help. Anyways, take care and have a good day! ] (]) 00:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for August 27 == | |||
| :{{ping|KGRAMR}} There isn't enough content for a split here, it basically needs a new article from scratch. I'd suggest simply making a new article if you want it to exist. The reception can technically be split off, but only when there's enough content in the rest of the article to justify doing so. ] (]) 00:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ]. | |||
| == Category:Body horror video games == | |||
| (].) --] (]) 07:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, you were the driving force behind keeping ] a few months ago (see ]). I recently took on implementing the decided purge and quickly looked at every page in that category (and its subcats), and not a single one mentions the term "body horror" (NB: ] says {{tq|... the choices made by the player affect the narrative and visual design..., generally along the lines of eldritch or body horror}}, but the term is not used in the cited sources). This, paired with the fact that afaics, every page in this cat was added to it by the same user (], who also created the cat) on the same day (1 June 2024), made me think that the deletion rationale ({{tq|entirely original research}}) was mostly accurate, but that's not why I'm writing this message. I'm bringing it up, because while I'm happy to add it to articles if I find a source for it (to avoid removing the category), I'm not sure how I would add the "body horror" aspect to a video game article, even if I found sources supporting body horror as a defining characteristic, and I thought since you're a member of ] (and participated in the deletion discussion), I'd ask you (I hope that's alright). | |||
| == Tables and games reception sections == | |||
| I'm not that familiar with video game article guidelines, but as far as I understand, body horror is not one of the ] that ] states one should use (and for example, ] also says that the infobox {{tq|should not include thematic genres (like science fiction, horror, etc.)}}). WP:VG/GENRE also states: {{tq|Simply borrowing parts of a genre does not necessarily make the game of that genre, and instead can be said to be using elements of that genre in the lead and gameplay prose.}} Let's say that is the case, how would you mention/integrate "body horror" in an article (as I don't know what common phrasings for this sort of thing are in video game articles; e.g., would you just say something to the effect of "The game uses body horror elements." somewhere in those sections)? To provide a more specific hypothetical, how what would you add it to the article ] (this is one of the two games for which you gave in the deletion discussion; the article is currently in the cat but doesn't cite this specific source or use the term), assuming that you'd consider it a defining characteristic? I'd appreciate your input on this, thanks! ] (]) 22:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Please note ] this encyclopedia is supposed to be text first, tables are supplementary. | |||
| ==Top AfC Editor== | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:top;" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| This principle is specifically reiterated in ] which explains {{tl|Video game ratings}} "This template is not required. It supplements the reception section; it does not replace it." <br /> | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Articles for Creation Barnstar 2024 Top Editor''' | |||
| 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." | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: center; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | In 2024 you were one of the , thank you! --] (]) 14:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| == Merry Christmas! == | |||
| You can add tables if you want but please do not remove article text as you did in your recent edit. If you want to expand the table make sure to first expand the article text. -- ] (]) 04:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);; float: left; margin-top: 3px; background-color: #CD0412; border: 1px solid #0F6E02; padding: 10px; width: 425px; clear: both;"> | |||
| :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... ] (]) 05:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);; border-style:solid; border-color:#0C8703; background-color:#CD0412; border-width:5px; text-align:left; padding:18px;" class="plainlinks" valign="top" width: 300px;> ]<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color:white"> ]] ] ] ] ] ] ] (] ] ]).</span><br /><br /> | |||
| :: I hadn't realized the guidelines seem to contradict themselves. The preceding sentence to the one you mentioned even says {{tq|"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 Misplaced Pages 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.) | |||
| '''<span style="color: white; margin-bottom: 0.3em; font-size: 116%; border-bottom: medium none; font-weight: bold; background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% transparent; margin: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0.17em;">Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year</span>''' | |||
| :: Nonetheless ] is project wide guideline, and prose is supposed to come first {{tq|"Articles are intended to consist primarily of prose"}}. -- ] (]) 11:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <p><span style="color:white">This greeting (and season) promotes ] </span></p></div> <br /> | |||
| :::It seems like you have an issue with the policy, but I am only following it. You should go to ] 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. ] (]) 14:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <span style="color:white">Spread the ] by adding '''<nowiki>{{subst:User:Matty.007/template/Christmas}}</nowiki>''' to someone's talk page with a friendly message. If everyone who got this put it on two talk pages, we would have... lots of Christmas spirit! Have fun finding ] in this message!</span></div></div> | |||
| {{clear}} | |||
| == Notability of Fundamental Paper Education == | |||
| — 16:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC) ]] 16:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 12:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == BLUDGEON == | |||
| Per your talk page comments at ], 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. ] (]) 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 ], 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. ] (]) 12:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] 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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 17:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@] 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. | |||
| ::::] (]) 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. ] (]) 05:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::@] 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...) | |||
| ::::::] (]) 11:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review == | |||
| Hi there! The trial of the <strong>RfA discussion-only period</strong> passed at ] has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at ''']'''. Cheers, and happy editing! ] (]) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Theleekycauldron@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Mailing_list&oldid=1223231383 --> | |||
Latest revision as of 21:36, 25 December 2024
 Archives | ||||||||
Index
|
||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
| This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zxcvbnm. |
DYK for Feelie (Brave New World)
On 4 December 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Feelie (Brave New World), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Aldous Huxley developed his "feelies" in response to the emergence of "talkies"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Feelie (Brave New World). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Feelie (Brave New World)), 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.
RoySmith (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Splitting content of Super Valis IV from Valis IV into its own article
Hey there! How are you doing? Look, i noticed that you were responsible for splitting content of SNES Dracula X into its own article. I want to suggest you splitting content of Super Valis IV that is in Valis IV into its own article, since both the PC Engine and SNES versions are entirely different games, kinda like what happened with Rondo of Blood and SNES Dracula X. I could do it if i knew how to split said content into its own stand-alone article so i figured why not ask for help. Anyways, take care and have a good day! Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- @KGRAMR: There isn't enough content for a split here, it basically needs a new article from scratch. I'd suggest simply making a new article if you want it to exist. The reception can technically be split off, but only when there's enough content in the rest of the article to justify doing so. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Category:Body horror video games
Hi, you were the driving force behind keeping Category:Body horror video games a few months ago (see deletion discussion). I recently took on implementing the decided purge and quickly looked at every page in that category (and its subcats), and not a single one mentions the term "body horror" (NB: one says ... the choices made by the player affect the narrative and visual design..., generally along the lines of eldritch or body horror
, but the term is not used in the cited sources). This, paired with the fact that afaics, every page in this cat was added to it by the same user (Latiromazzaire, who also created the cat) on the same day (1 June 2024), made me think that the deletion rationale (entirely original research
) was mostly accurate, but that's not why I'm writing this message. I'm bringing it up, because while I'm happy to add it to articles if I find a source for it (to avoid removing the category), I'm not sure how I would add the "body horror" aspect to a video game article, even if I found sources supporting body horror as a defining characteristic, and I thought since you're a member of WP:VG (and participated in the deletion discussion), I'd ask you (I hope that's alright).
I'm not that familiar with video game article guidelines, but as far as I understand, body horror is not one of the standard video game genres that WP:VG/GENRE states one should use (and for example, Template:Infobox video game also says that the infobox should not include thematic genres (like science fiction, horror, etc.)
). WP:VG/GENRE also states: Simply borrowing parts of a genre does not necessarily make the game of that genre, and instead can be said to be using elements of that genre in the lead and gameplay prose.
Let's say that is the case, how would you mention/integrate "body horror" in an article (as I don't know what common phrasings for this sort of thing are in video game articles; e.g., would you just say something to the effect of "The game uses body horror elements." somewhere in those sections)? To provide a more specific hypothetical, how what would you add it to the article Zoochosis (video game) (this is one of the two games for which you gave a source in the deletion discussion; the article is currently in the cat but doesn't cite this specific source or use the term), assuming that you'd consider it a defining characteristic? I'd appreciate your input on this, thanks! Felida (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Top AfC Editor
|
The Articles for Creation Barnstar 2024 Top Editor | |
| In 2024 you were one of the top AfC editors, thank you! --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC) |
Merry Christmas!
Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.
Spread the Christmas spirit by adding {{subst:User:Matty.007/template/Christmas}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message. If everyone who got this put it on two talk pages, we would have... lots of Christmas spirit! Have fun finding links in this message!
— 16:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC) CaptainGalaxy 16:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)