Archives | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
This page is archived by ClueBot III. |
Draft: Minetest
Hi! I saw this draft while I was doing some review, but I couldn't make up my mind on it. I did see one decent source there [1], and I added another one [2] (Linux Magazine and Linux Format). But I wasn't able to find more beyond that, although it is mentioned a lot in scholar works. However, it could technically squeak through WP:GNG, although I'd have it maybe merged with Minecraft article somehow, rather than a separate article. Saying nothing changed since 2012's AfD (and both sources are in 2017, 5 years later) is too much though. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Jovanmilic97: I more meant that nothing had changed with regards to the article itself. Which is why I did not outright reject it for non-notability, as it still had potential. I would be happy to approve it once the unreliable sources are removed and the reliable ones added.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, it seems like a marginal case. I'll do some Google Scholar check to see if any of the works there mention it in WP:SIGCOV. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Concerning the last review of Draft:Minetest: Your comment states "It is mentioned in a few papers, but I don't see the typical indications of notability like reviews or significant critical commentary." But when compared with the previous review before this last one, I've actually added two new references to address the issue with notability: the video review by Ricks, Ryndon, an independent video blogger with 150K subscribers, and a comprehensive review by Saunders, Mike, in Linux Magazine, which is a printed journal. In addition to these two new sources, I've also added the recent interview of the lead developer by Wikinews. Can you please clarify whether these have helped to improve notability, and whether we need to produce yet more sources of the same nature? SoylentCow (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Nomination of Bloodstained (series) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bloodstained (series) 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/Bloodstained (series) 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. Glades12 (talk) 09:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Resubmition of Draft:Death and Taxes (video game)
Hello! Just sending you a quick message to let you know that I've overhauled the draft page for Death and Taxes. You declined it in its previous state 7 months ago. Although I'm not the original creator of the page, I figured I'd notify you since it's been so long. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- @OmegaFallon: Hi. I still think the game would fail WP:GNG as it is currently. Not all sources are equal, and the article uses a number of unreliable sources that should be outright removed. See WP:VG/S. However, the Switch release might result in a crop of new reviews, so you should probably wait until after that.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Which sources, exactly? The ones I've chosen seem to mostly be from well-known publications. Are you referring to Big Boss Battle and Keen Gamer? On a second look I'd agree that maybe those aren't suitable, but the rest seem fine. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- @OmegaFallon:Forbes source is written by a "contributor". Consensus is: "Articles written by Forbes contributors do not have the same editorial oversight and may not be reliable. Editors are encouraged to find alternatives to contributor pieces.". PC Gamer is reliable, but the source isn't a full review and is just a trivial mention. Indie Games Plus - another trivial mention. AltWire - an interview, therefore a WP:PRIMARY source that doesn't count towards notability. Explica - no proof that it is a reliable source. Pallas University is also a WP:PRIMARY source. Ultimately, the only truly significant and reliable reference is the Rock, Paper Shotgun one written by Alice Bell, but an article requires multiple instances of significant coverage to be notable.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- @OmegaFallon: It looks like the page got accepted by someone else anyway. But if the Switch version of the game does not result in better sources, I wouldn't be surprised if the page was AfD'd sometime down the line.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- @OmegaFallon:Forbes source is written by a "contributor". Consensus is: "Articles written by Forbes contributors do not have the same editorial oversight and may not be reliable. Editors are encouraged to find alternatives to contributor pieces.". PC Gamer is reliable, but the source isn't a full review and is just a trivial mention. Indie Games Plus - another trivial mention. AltWire - an interview, therefore a WP:PRIMARY source that doesn't count towards notability. Explica - no proof that it is a reliable source. Pallas University is also a WP:PRIMARY source. Ultimately, the only truly significant and reliable reference is the Rock, Paper Shotgun one written by Alice Bell, but an article requires multiple instances of significant coverage to be notable.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Which sources, exactly? The ones I've chosen seem to mostly be from well-known publications. Are you referring to Big Boss Battle and Keen Gamer? On a second look I'd agree that maybe those aren't suitable, but the rest seem fine. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Video game franchises introduced in 2018
A tag has been placed on Category:Video game franchises introduced in 2018 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 17:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GPD Win Max
Hi @Zxcvbnm: I see you closed that Afd outside consensus and against policy. You perhaps don't know but if you vote in some discussion, you don't close it, ever. Any discussion, Afd, RFC. You let some other person do it, to ensure it is done fairly and there is no conflict of interest. Please, do not do it again. Also there wasn't a nomination to close per WP:AFD guidelines, there was a question. Unless there is a Nomination Withdrawn message, it is never closed unless done by administrator and there is agreement to close it. Please dont do it again. scope_creepTalk 07:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- You have done 1500 Afd's and still not following policy. I'm surprised. Please be more careful next time. scope_creepTalk 08:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Scope creep: Apologies, given that it was seemingly withdrawn by the nominator, as well as a SNOW keep, I decided to WP:IAR and go with what would have been the obvious and impossible to debate conclusion of that nomination. I would never have closed if there was any apparent debate about the article's notability or if it was ever in doubt. I figured it would be uncontroversial, but I guess there is still a problem with it.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think it would be a solid Keep, no doubt, I guess its passed. I got pulled for the same behaviour last year and although I did know about it, I charged on for a Snow Keep and with minutes I got a admin warning. I didn't expect it, for something so innocuous. It is seen as disruptive. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 18:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Scope creep: Apologies, given that it was seemingly withdrawn by the nominator, as well as a SNOW keep, I decided to WP:IAR and go with what would have been the obvious and impossible to debate conclusion of that nomination. I would never have closed if there was any apparent debate about the article's notability or if it was ever in doubt. I figured it would be uncontroversial, but I guess there is still a problem with it.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- You have done 1500 Afd's and still not following policy. I'm surprised. Please be more careful next time. scope_creepTalk 08:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Ryujinx emulator page submission
Hi, The comments of Draft:Ryujinx mention Ryujinx is not reliable. However, based on the current state of the emulator, it's able to run games Yuzu couldn't, such as Devil May Cry 3 Special Edition (Yuzu shows black screen after the Capcom logo while Ryujinx runs it from start to finish if by a simple configuration of enabling "Ignore Missing Services" hack. Astral Chain in Yuzu suffers GPU memory leak which shut down after 5+ min of play while Ryujinx doesn't.
I'd suggest publish the Ryujinx page. Islandking2000 (talk) 06:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Islandking2000: I'm sure the emulator itself is reliable, I just meant WP:UNRELIABLE sources. Whether or not it works well, it has to pass the notability test before it can be an article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Did you check the page? I have added three more sources stating Ryujinx is reliable, one of which is the same reliable source Yuzu page is using. And if you compare the current Ryujinx page with the Yuzu page when it was first approved to be published, Ryujinx page more than qualifies the notability test. Islandking2000 (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Islandking2000:The Yuzu page was created by an anonymous IP editor; it never went through AfC or was vetted for notability. It was never "approved" for publishing, as users can also make pages right away with minimal oversight. Infact I voted "Delete" in the AfD that was done for it in 2019, citing a lack of notability, which was true at that time. A Gizmodo article has appeared since then about it, making it more of a borderline case.
- To survive deletion, an article has to have significant coverage in reliable sources. Significant means it has to be an indepth discussion and not just "this thing is good; take a look". And reliable means the site has to have proven editorial oversight. Please see WP:VG/S for what is reliable. If there is a game journalism source that is listed under Unreliable or not listed, it is probably not usable in the article. Putting a massive amount of trivial sources in to make it look notable is called WP:REFBOMBing but does not mean it is actually notable.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Alright, then you must mean this version of the Yuzu page, because that's when AfD was removed, and thus allowed to be published. The page has two reliable sources, Kotaku, and PC Gamer; one situational, being Forbes.
- With the current edit, Ryujinx page has one reliable sources. Engadget, and mentioned in another, Nintendo life; two situational, being Forbes, and Wccftech.
- We both know that Switch is still selling, thus talking about its emulation is an dedicated thing, which is why we do not see many published articles about it, even Yuzu, its current page only has two reliable sources (mentioned above), mixed with questionables, such as its website, twitter, etc. But it's quite understandable.
- We also know that Ryujinx is a reliable emulator, so what's stopping Wikipedia from letting more people know about this useful software? Islandking2000 (talk) 04:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Islandking2000:Usually, "3 significant mentions in reliable sources" is the threshold that is used, at least by the video game project, to ensure that something is notable and got widespread coverage. The mention in Engadget is not quite up to the level of significant, as only a couple paragraphs, and the one in Nintendo Life is more about the custom dungeon than it is about the emulator, so it's unclear whether it would even be relevant to the article. This doesn't mean the emulator will not be more notable in the future, but it's still an example of WP:TOOSOON and needs more time to percolate. It has nothing to do with whether Nintendo dislikes it or not (see WP:NOTCENSORED) but a dearth of coverage in general.
- Or to use a metaphor, let's say your friend Bob is the world's best Chess player. You might know it but if there's only a single small article about it anywhere of note, then it's going to be hard to prove for certain. But he might go on to win a championship and get several huge articles written about that, at some point in the future.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- To expound on that, Wikipedia is not an advertising tool, so it is not for letting people know about new software, just documenting software that became notable separately from Wikipedia.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Simple question: Where're the three reliable sources Yuzu page has and had when AfD was removed? Islandking2000 (talk) 05:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Islandking2000:The sourcing was pretty poor. It had a few reliable sources but nothing I'd call significant. It's important to note, however, that it did not close as Keep, but as No Consensus, and most of the Keep votes were impassioned pleas to WP:ITSNOTABLE without mentioning why. The sheer amount of keep votes overwhelmed the nomination but did not really prove anything.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Simple question: Where're the three reliable sources Yuzu page has and had when AfD was removed? Islandking2000 (talk) 05:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- To expound on that, Wikipedia is not an advertising tool, so it is not for letting people know about new software, just documenting software that became notable separately from Wikipedia.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
What about PCSX2? three reliable sources? Islandking2000 (talk) 06:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Islandking2000:Note that "what about X?" is not a viable argument in deletion discussions; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The last AfD was done in 2013 when articles were judged by totally different standards. The emulator does have two reliable, significant sources here and here. I don't think these are in the article but would probably be able to successfully argue for notability if it ever underwent an AfD when combined with the PC World and (possibly?) Geek.com article, though I am unable to access it without going into Internet Archive.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Citra (emulator) is not as old as PCSX2 and should withhold the current standard, but it doesn't, as it's not having three reliable sources yet it still stands.
- But I was not asking questions because I want to see those pages deleted, I asked because I want to find a way to present another useful software rather than having to wait for who knows how long. Well I guess there is way: force a redirection, then wait for the deletion discussion page just like Yuzu page did, gather enough allies, "overwhelm" the deletion vote by 8 to 5, the page stays, no more notability test, not beautiful, but a swift way to bypass the rigid check.
- I'm not going to do that. Just urge you guys to think about the consequences - Ryujinx stays hidden while Yuzu is approved for publishing (Don't deny it, it's the fact, solid result, that's what matters), is it fair? Shouldn't Wikipedia have some flexible ways to treat gaming emulators? Such as, considering videos to be reliable sauces if there're a significant number of people who are not affiliated with the software uploaded videos showing the functionality of the emulator, instead of waiting for three people working in medias which have absolutely no apparent duty to publish any emulator-related articles to write something. Islandking2000 (talk) 07:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Islandking2000:There exists List of video game console emulators if you are worried about "staying hidden". Lists don't necessarily have such high criteria of notability for their entries, meaning that Ryujinx can definitely be listed there (and already is.) That list also may have potential for expansion of short blurbs about the individual entries. It's not like it will have zero visibility whatsoever, it's just not notable enough for a standalone article. While it would be great to flick a magic wand and get 3 people in media to write about emulators, it's kind of not very common for emulators that are "in development" and there's not much Wikipedia can do about that. The policies cannot really "get flexible" as it's a sitewide rule that applies to everything.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- The thing about votestacking is that it doesn't really do much because arguments are decided by policy (see WP:NOTAVOTE). So while it can short circuit the system for a while, it doesn't suddenly make a page impossible to be deleted at another time, especially if it's not improved after the first AfD.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Islandking2000:There exists List of video game console emulators if you are worried about "staying hidden". Lists don't necessarily have such high criteria of notability for their entries, meaning that Ryujinx can definitely be listed there (and already is.) That list also may have potential for expansion of short blurbs about the individual entries. It's not like it will have zero visibility whatsoever, it's just not notable enough for a standalone article. While it would be great to flick a magic wand and get 3 people in media to write about emulators, it's kind of not very common for emulators that are "in development" and there's not much Wikipedia can do about that. The policies cannot really "get flexible" as it's a sitewide rule that applies to everything.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Zxcvbnm: I bet you are not familiar with gaming emulation environment recent years? It changed from "flick a magic wand" to be nearly impossible for media to dedicate sources to publish emulator articles about the current selling consoles, as I mentioned several times before, and you also agreed that, Yuzu and Citra didn't have significant sources coverage to be granted existence here either, and yet they exist for, two years, and four years respectively, and see no sign of deletion or whatever. That's IS the flexibility Wikipedia should give to the all gaming emulators, and that IS the flexibility Ryujinx doesn't have. I wonder, is there any policy here to deal with such unfair treatments?
- Your argument of "in development" state is also not valid, while both Yuzu and Ryujinx are at in-development phase because they want to stay low=profile in fear Nintendo wrath (yeah I know you would say otherwise but this is the reality, we're not so naïve to believe Nintendo is willing sit idol) they're both capable of running a number of games. The existence and visibility of Ryujinx in Wikipedia is important it is able to run some games Yuzu couldn't, thus should be documented here because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
- Actually, your mentioning of List of video game console emulators page confirmed what I understand about Wikipedia policy - Ryujinx has a place there, but a certain person says otherwise and keeps deleting my edits to that page.Islandking2000 (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Islandking2000: The articles about the other emulators don't remain due to some kind of bias, special treatment or protection. If they were non-notable and stayed there, it's simply because nobody bothered to put them up for deletion. See WP:ARTICLEAGE. As far as your edits being reverted I think that the Engadget link is enough of a non-trivial mention to include it in the list so my opinion is that the editor is wrong on that front. You'll have to either convince him of that or start a larger discussion in WP:VG if that fails.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Zxcvbnm: Just asking, if I redirect Ryujinx, will you file a deletion? Islandking2000 (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Islandking2000: I have no problem with it being redirected to the List of video game console emulators, but you might want to make sure it is agreed upon to be there first so you don't end up with a redirect and nothing mentioned in the article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Zxcvbnm: Just asking, if I redirect Ryujinx, will you file a deletion? Islandking2000 (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Islandking2000: The articles about the other emulators don't remain due to some kind of bias, special treatment or protection. If they were non-notable and stayed there, it's simply because nobody bothered to put them up for deletion. See WP:ARTICLEAGE. As far as your edits being reverted I think that the Engadget link is enough of a non-trivial mention to include it in the list so my opinion is that the editor is wrong on that front. You'll have to either convince him of that or start a larger discussion in WP:VG if that fails.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
You incorrectly stated that Ryujinx is in the list of emulators found here: List of video game console emulators. It is not (obviously, since there is no Wiki page and this list is made up exclusively of links to Wiki pages). Currently Ryujinx has several major features in its emulator that its competitor does not have. It also has a current and vastly more expansive compatibility list, and a Discord server with 18,000 users. As Ryujinx development has already surpassed some Wikipedia-published emulators in its feature set and respective game compatibility, tell me this: if Ryujinx continues development over the next several years and has even more emulation-centric notability references (the people who actively follow and are knowledgeable about such subjects) BUT fails to secure an article written about it by a "trustworthy source" (i.e. PC Mag and Gizmodo, apparently) are you saying it still would not qualify?FrankOlney (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- @FrankOlney: Not incorrect. It was removed by another editor just now. Please do not assume bad faith, especially not checking the edit summary beforehand. In any event, it doesn't matter how many mentions it gets in the emulation community, it would need to be written of in your typical sources with editorial oversight before it could be recognized as notable on Wikipedia. Notability criteria does not equal sheer popularity, usefulness, etc.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, but "notability" is way too subjective at this point. Who even determines what "your typical sources" are? When does a source go from not being "your typical sources" to joining those ranks? This gives way too much power to established publications who may or may not be completely uninformed on a particular topic such as emulation. What you've suggested is that it wouldn't matter if the Wall Street Journal wrote that Ryujinx was a mediocre Sony PS4 emulator and got all the other facts wrong as well; just so long as the name is mentioned in multiple paragraphs in a 'major publication' (again, who determines what that is?), you can check the "notability" box. Gimme a break.FrankOlney (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)