Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Robert McClenon (talk | contribs) at 18:09, 4 November 2024 (Notice of discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dōkyūsei 2

Hello, Zxcvbnm,

I don't think this discussion qualified for a SNOW closure. Typical cases I have seen close as SNOW Keeps have around 8-12 Keep votes and no Deletes. This discussion had only 4 editors arguing for Keeping this article so it falls short. I'm not going to revert your closure because I'm pretty sure that this article would have been Kept any way if the discussion had run a full 7 days and reverting the closure would be pointless bureaucracy. But you should raise the bar on what you believe qualifies as a SNOW, it's more than 4 votes of support. This distinction can become an issue if the closure is contested and is brought to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review which can be an unpleasant experience, not only for admins but also for NACs. I appreciate you helping as an uninvolved editor but be sure you are familiar with Misplaced Pages:Non-admin closure. Thank you and have a great weekend. Liz 00:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I would have !voted Keep if I did not close the discussion, so that technically makes 5 people. But I get it, the threshold is way higher than I assume. I will let an admin close any AfD discussion because I rarely see any get to 8+ keep votes in the video game realm unless it's a troll attempt... ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding AfDs

I am taking this discussion here, as in retrospect I feel the AfD itself isn't the best avenue to discuss it now that I'm not blowing a fuse. But to be frank, you have become seen as a "boogeyman" of sorts when it comes to working on character articles, and I seriously don't think that's your intention. But we have reached a point where long established editors will say in other outlets such as discord they worry you may AfD a subject they've started on and have even been discouraged from approaching a subject entirely because "Zx will probably AfD it and I don't need that stress." And we should not be dreading PresN's new article list to bring such upon works as if you're some Eye of Sauron.

That's ultimately detrimental to a project, especially when editors feel they have produced something high quality that meets wikipedia's standards they're familiar with, and your approach may come across as seeing it as low. I do feel AfD and even BLAR-ing have a place on wikipedia as valuable tools. But if we're seeing established editors will multiple works under their belt are working on a subject shouldn't we be having a discussion first, not to "feel out an AfD" but to make sure neither party is looking at a topic wrong? This has been an ongoing subject, and I'm definitely trying to approach this as one longtime editor to another, feeling these are common courtesies you would expect. Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

If you really think I'm a bogeyman, than I can certainly leave. But, I'm not sure if you really want that. Like a CEO who fires anyone who disagrees with them, being surrounded by an echo chamber isn't great when it comes to decision making.

Still, I get that my sudden AfDs have caused no small amount of consternation. I will keep that in mind and try to discuss first to make sure I'm not missing something. At the very least it would strengthen my argument were I to still do one. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that. By no means do I want you to leave the project, and while we don't always see eye to eye you do some good work of your own.

Right now project wise we're trying to get a lot of Pokemon articles done to figure out an eventual Good Topic for the things, even with the aforementioned sense of caution. No sense in doing one only to get sideswiped by some article we didn't fully research after all and then having to rush to GAN, after all. And given I put together three articles here recently off found sources (Meltan, Pinsir and Kleavor) it's valid to worry.

How are you feeling about what's out there right now? Should there be any concerns?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Pinsir - its notability is unclear to me, though I think Beckett's Guide and IGN are the strongest sources. Even if I randomly saw it, I wouldn't have AfD'd it without asking, especially because it's such an older Pokemon. However, do you think there is another source on their level that isn't a listicle? I'm not convinced the one about "Kawaii Pinsir", while funny, is actually SIGCOV.

Meltan - despite relying a lot on content farm sources, I'd probably give it a "weak keep" if it were ever AfD'd. I do feel like it toes the line of WP:INDISCRIMINATE due to it not having an appearance as a character with a personality, as with some other Poke's such as Butterfree. But the Variety article helps with that by establishing some importance to the game's popularity.

P.S. I wasn't aware of the Good Topic push so I can see why it would have angered you. I'll keep that in mind when I see many Pokemon articles being created. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate it. Regarding Kawaii Pinsir, I think that one's just in the body, I agree it's not really SIGCOV so I avoided it for reception. But you do feel the Taiwanese website and The Mainichi don't work? The latter is basically Japan's Washington Post, complete with me having to buy a subscription just to read it to cite.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

With regards to the Taiwanese website, do you mean ZhaiZhai News? Because it seems very tiny...

You'd have to demonstrate the contents of The Mainichi because it could be the make or break one here. It's literally impossible to tell from the blurb. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Fair on ZhaiZhai. As for the Mainichi, that one's a big hard to archive or show because of the paywall. Unlike say the Washington Post or Wired it completely hides most of the article unless you're logged in.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Randomly noticed topic via (talk page stalker), but if I may... you can always use the |quote= parameter in a citation, and hopefully people WP:AGF. Regarding the paid access to Mainichi Shimbun more specifically, though, consider using PressReader. Your local library may provide digital access with just a library card. You'd have to know the date of the issue (assuming it's published in the actual newspaper) to find the article, though. I'm not sure of the newspaper-specific search function capabilities provided. 2pou (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver 1 & 2 Remastered

Hi Zxcvbnm. Let me know what you have in mind as far as "enough to justify a separate standalone article on the topic" here. Seems comparable in scope to that of Tomb Raider IV–VI Remastered from the same developers, currently uncontested. Thanks LoK Wiki (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I also think that Tomb Raider IV–VI Remastered is not enough for a standalone article. I'm not the designated article patroller or merger though, so I may decide to take on one article and not another. You can't just point at a newly created, also unsuitable article and say "well they made it so mine must be fine". That's not how it works, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there a designated article patroller or merger to refer to? Coherency is useful, if you prefer to cast it along the lines of "well they made it so neither must be fine". LoK Wiki (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, there is New Page Patrol, but they don't really check for whether a page overlaps with another page. So I think what I meant to say is, "it's best to understand what should and shouldn't be there and why" rather than pointing at some other page that didn't happen to be merged (yet). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

My Draft about Backyard Baseball 2001

Thank you for giving me suggestions on reliable sources for reviews! I kept looking for some and I was so desperate to get the page submitted because of the acceptance of the Backyard Baseball page and the fact that Backyard Baseball 2001 is getting released on Steam. When I didn't find any reliable sources for reviews, I kind of gave up. Well, I'll keep working on my draft page to make sure it's acceptable to Misplaced Pages's standards and thank you for correcting my mistakes. 74.132.195.94 (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

No problem. I legit want to see articles pass, but if it lacks the right sources, it might just end up deleted, so it's best to make sure everything is up to par beforehand such that it has zero chance of being removed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. 74.132.195.94 (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)