This page has archives. Sections older than30 days may be auto-archived byClueBot III if there are more than 5.
This is aWikipediauser 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 thanWikipedia, you are viewing amirror 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other thanWikipedia. The original talk page is located athttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zxcvbnm.
I shouldn't need to tell you this, but casting aspersions like you did onTalk:Characters of Metaphor: ReFantazio is entirely unacceptable. Suggesting without evidence that any editor on Wikipedia is doing an "end run around policy" is disrespectful, uncivil, and entirely unconstructive to any discussion. An editor in good standing titling a list in a way that dozens of lists are titled, it should be extremely obvious to an editor who has been editing for as long as you have that this was not done in bad faith. This is a violation of so many policies and guidelines, and I know you know better than that.Cukie Gherkin (talk)23:56, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was not intended to attack any editor, solely the general concept of circumventing policy, which is what I feel these name changes do as a whole. If it gave the impression of a direct accusation then I apologize as I do not know the precise reason the name was changed, only that it directly contravenes previous consensus on the subject from 2021. I do think that people should not move potentially controversial things without discussion regardless of whether they are in good standing as a general rule of thumb.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)00:05, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of intent, there's no reason to even bring up the motivation for why the articles are titled in the way they are. At best, you are correct, and the article is changed regardless of that comment. At worst, you are incorrect, and you've just made a bad-faith assumption on an editor (and looking at your contributions, multiple editors) and potentially caused upset. As far as the latter point goes, Characters of Metaphor ReFantazio was never titled List of Metaphor: ReFantazio characters, which is why it is not really advised to use the same support rationale without first checking that it applies (and in this case, not appropriate because it doesn't affect the result of the discussion in any way). -Cukie Gherkin (talk)00:11, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that saying someone is going around policy is a "bad-faith" accusation. People may be acting in good faith but still disruptive. And ironically, directly accusing me of acting in bad faith without a benefit of the doubt is in itself bad faith.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)00:49, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"End run" is definitionally avoiding. To say someone is doing an end run around policy is to say that they are trying to get around policy, which is objectively a bad-faith accusation. Almost never is it a good thing for a person to be trying to evade policy, and honestly, it's really disappointing that you're doubling down. No reasonable person would hear being accused of doing an "end run around policy" and think that was anything outside of an accusation that they were actively doing something wrong.
As far as the spurious claim that accusing someone of acting in bad faith with zero evidence is itself a bad-faith assumption, that's utterly ridiculous. What is the benefit of the doubt to be made here? Can you give me an example of something that would explain why you accused multiple editors of doing an end run around policy without any evidence that they did anything even remotely of the sort? Because to me, I already know that you failed to do due diligence in assessing at least this article, as the suggestion that Characters of Metaphor: ReFantazio was called anything else is extremely easy to prove false. That you didn't even put the effort in to verify that you were making an accusation that has even the slightest possibility of being based on reality tells me that you're either assuming bad faith in people without evidence or that you simply do not have the ability to prevent yourself from saying the first accusation that comes to mind. Given that you are in the wrong here and are trying to turn the table on people for pointing out what you did wrong, I find your apology to be inauthentic, only made to prevent further scrutiny. This and your accusation levied against Pokelego999 ofWP:IDONTLIKEIT onTalk:Plasma Cutter (Dead Space), a confusing accusation to multiple editors in that discussion, makes me deeply concerned with your behavior. Stop kneejerk accusing people of policy/guideline violations without any evidence. An ANI is too much work, but this behavior has to stop, and I'd sooner you just knock it off without having to get administrators involved. -Cukie Gherkin (talk)01:32, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will endeavor to be less potentially misinterpretable in the future. At the same time, I can't really control whether or not I am believed, only give what I think is a reasonable explanation that I was not trying to cast aspersions at specific editors.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)03:05, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Zxcvbnm. Hope you're doing well. Just wanted to get your opinion on some sourcing for an article, as I know you very active in the video gaming area of Wikipedia. My background is in music technology (BA level), and I have used an ancient program called GXSCC for a long time. I was hoping there was decent sourcing available for a Wikipedia article, there aresome okay sources, but I don't know if it is good enough for a standalone article. I have put everything I could find in my sandbox here:User:11wallisb/sandbox. If this was an article, or astub, would this be good enough to save it from being submitted to AfD. I know the sources aren't good, but some of them aren't bad. Let me know your thoughts, thanks!11WB (talk)02:23, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the program, but it doesn't seem independently notable from what I can tell of the sources. That's my opinion, at least.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)03:10, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for having a look! I am disappointed there isn't anything else, this is everything I was able to find. The primary sources are fine for general information, the university thesis has some stuff on GXSCC, the interview with Kazuhiko Uehara (one of the SCC sound designers) is excellent, though the fact it is only viewable from Imgur images and Tumblr for the translation is not great. I'll see if I can find anything and then attempt to create the article. I don't plan to use all the sources, as some of them are just not good. I'll keep in mind that it needs to be independently notable. Definitely a challenging article to attempt to make a case for, but I think there is just about something there. Thanks!11WB (talk)03:17, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews cannot be used to demonstrate notability since they are primary sources. It would require several pieces of SIGCOV in secondary sources and I'm not really seeing that there. If you can point out this secondary, reliable source coverage it would help.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)08:18, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mainstream secondary coverage is non-existent due to how niche the program is. I also put this down to its inconsistent development history. I have adraft on the go, I don't plan on moving it to mainspace until it has been looked at by active video game editors and music software editors. For the secondary sources I have found you'll want to seeDraft:GXSCC#Reception. The interview with Kazuhiko Uehara is crucial not for GXSCC, but for information on the development of the Konami SCC sound chip, which GXSCC is based on.11WB (talk)08:24, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify this draft is more of an experiment, as at the moment I am in a period where I don't know what to create a Wikipedia article about. I am 99% sure if the draft was moved to mainspace, it would not survive an AfD.11WB (talk)08:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you want to make an article in the VG space and don't know what to make it on, everything inWP:VG/R has been fully vetted for notability and requested by someone, and there are many more such articles needed in the archives.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)08:36, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, some of those requests go back quite a few years! I'll be honest, from my short time editing in the video game part of Wikipedia, I realise that, as it should be, articles in that area are held to a high standard. Having assisted with the Sylveon article and partaking in those discussions, I am not sure I am equipped with the specific knowledge to be able to put together articles to a good enough standard for the project. I've found that I seem to be better at writing about events of things that took place, such as aircraft accidents. There is a definitely quality problem when I write an article about something like a game or a film, as opposed to something that took place. If that makes any sense at all!11WB (talk)08:42, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well the thing is, for the most part articles are deleted based on notability, not "standards". Writing articles to a high standard is encouraged with the Good Article system, but even a bare minimum requested article is better than nothing, while some articles that reach an extremely high standard are still often deleted or redirected solely on merits of notability or overlapping. The articles in requests are almost all ones that would not overlap or have a notability risk, so no matter how good they are, it is unlikely they would ever get deleted or merged as long as they meet the bare minimum.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)08:50, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. I am currently waiting on several GA reviews on articles I've written or contributed to. It will be an excellent opportunity to gain more experience on sourcing and writing articles for Wikipedia. The article requests on that list are definitely of interest, however I think for me personally, having the sources already laid out ready for an article takes away the fun of the research. I enjoy researching and looking for sources myself probably more than actually writing the article or essay.11WB (talk)08:59, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, the sources there are just the bare minimum to prove an article is notable, and there are more to be found. I think it's rare for the sources shown in the requests to be all there is. So, there's still an opportunity to do your own research, I don't think that's taken away, you are just essentially given a safety net of incontrovertible sources.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)09:10, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look through some of those when I get the chance in that case. As a sidenote, it turns out I had sourced a mirror site for one of the secondary sources. There are now at least 2 academic studies that include GXSCC, along with several regular articles. I'm going to pause for the moment as I've completed as much as I set to do. I plan to contact some editors from the music software part of the project and see if the draft can be improved further. I am pleasantly surprised by the 2 academic sources I've managed to uncover!11WB (talk)10:03, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
UsingGoogle Scholar, I've managed to find three more academic studies that use GXSCC and discuss the program in their respective papers. I am quite surprised by this. I don't think we have discussed academic sources specifically before. This is definitely a unique case of something not being covered by any well-known sources, instead being covered in academic level papers. They are, to my knowledge, still secondary sources. What are your thoughts on this?Draft:GXSCC#Reception and academia if you want to view the progress!11WB (talk)10:52, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Academic sources are absolutely viable secondary sources... sometimes. ButWP:SCHOLARSHIP has numerous caveats that you should become familiar with. Besides containingWP:SIGCOV, the academic paper needs to have been published by a reputable publisher and entered mainstream academic discourse."Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." Simply finding something that was ever published by anyone is not enough, in other words.
I cannot confirm whether "The Discourse and Culture of Chip Music" was cited by anybody. But, regardless, the mention there seems trivial, at only a single paragraph long. "The resolution of sound: Understanding retro game audio beyond the ‘8-bit’ horizon" also seems like only a trivial passing mention, and is really more about a specific YouTube channel that uses GXSCC than the actual program. I don't see where the major mentions suitable for filling up an entire article are here exactly.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)11:12, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Two seem to be in journals, the remaining 3 are theses. There are also 2-3 articles, obviously not from known sites like Kotaku, but they exist nonetheless. That puts the secondary coverage count at about 8. I will absolutely get more second opinions as GXSCC falls under both video games and music software. Having used this program for literally years, I am a tad biased, but I think I have written the draft in a way that isn't promotional or that reflects my liking of the program.
You mentioned whether the theses get cross referenced elsewhere, I have seen extensive reference lists on those academic papers, however I haven't checked whether those specific ones are referenced.
I am hesitant to move it to mainspace, mainly because of AfD and having seen recent video game nominations, it doesn't fill with me much confidence that it would survive with even a no consensus. I'll try and dig out any more sources I can find, as Google Scholar was not one I had thought to check, it may turn up some results!11WB (talk)11:18, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent some more time searching and have managed to turn up some more secondary sources. There is anonline article from the British computer magazineAlphr, and another quite obscurepost from the Russian websiteLiveJournal. These along with about 4-5 other online articles in thehow-to style from lesser known websites. There are of course the 5 academic studies, 2 of which are in peer-reviewed journals. This brings the total reference count up to 24.
9 primary sources, 5 academic publications of which 2 are in peer-reviewed journals, for a total of 15 secondary sources. This should satisfyWP:N and as the secondary sources come from the UK, Russia, Indonesia, Norway, Croatia and elsewhere, I thinkWP:SIGCOV is also satisfied.
I haveposted on the Music WikiProject talk page, so hopefully someone can leave music software related feedback there. I am still going to refrain from moving the draft to mainspace for now. In the event it is sent to AfD, I'll abstain from !voting as I usually do as well.
GXSCC has definitely been a challenge to find sources for, but I think I've done a decent job here. I am also quite certain there are many more Japanese specific sources that I'm simply not able to find due to the language and the likelihood that those websites don't appear on my search listings where I am.11WB (talk)03:03, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See alsoWP:USERG. Such sources are not acceptable for use, while sourcing from how-to guides risks violatingWP:INDISCRIMINATE as there is no clear indication of importance. In fact, the article doesn't really attempt to explain why the lay reader should care what the program is or what it does. While an interesting program in its time, I am still fairly firmly on the side of "this is not notable" as a veteran editor, but of course you are free to publish it if you wish. (However, it would be fairly unsurprising if it was deleted quickly).ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)03:31, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I do agree with you. I am not the type of editor who would move it to mainspace, expecting an AfD to then attempt to push a keep closure. That would go against my personal philosophy of being a respectable editor and would be ridiculously arrogant. This draft has definitely been an interesting experiment and has been a good learning opportunity, knowing how different types of sources contribute to Wikipedia notability policies and guidelines.
Your point on why the reader should care is extremely valid. If anything, the draft actually manages to discourage the use of the program (the reception paragraph goes into this).
A bit sad there isn't more on the program as personally I've had a lot of fun using it over the years and it does have, however short, an interesting development history dating back to the 80s.
@Zxcvbnm, I gave the draft another night of editing and searching for more secondary sources to back up what the primary sources say. I also went back over each section to focus on why the reader should care about the program. This has proven difficult to research due to how obscure the sources are, even though sources clearly do exist. I've reached out to Sergecross for another opinion, and they'veconfirmed they would look at it soon. I am probably about 70% confident that thiscould survive an AfD now with the improvements and extra parts I've added to the draft. I also want to say thank you for your help and advice with this, I appreciate that you are up-front and honest, it has been extremely helpful with pin-pointing what needs working on with the draft. If you would be willing to give it one more read,Draft:GXSCC, that would be really appreciated! I think I have found everything there is to find. The only sources that remain unused now are fromblogs andfandom sites–neither of which can or should be used.11WB (talk)07:07, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reading it over again, I don't see reason to change my estimation that it failsWP:GNG, unfortunately. A piece of reception talking about Konami's sound chip isn't necessarily talking about this particular program. I don't think GASHISOFT has any relation to Konami at all, so the two are entirely separate subjects. It really would have to be directly discussing the program itself, like a software review of some kind. About the best I can see happening is that a small mention of GXSCC gets added toMSX somewhere as a software that simulates the sound chip.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)07:41, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A merge wouldn't be applicable in my opinion. The sourcing for GXSCC actually outnumbers the sources available for the Konami SCC (weird I know!), 3 to 1 or even 4 to 1. This is based on my entire weekend of searching for references for both, and you can confirm this from the draft edit history. The Konami SCC is also what GXSCC is based on pretty much entirely, making it absolutely necessary for inclusion.
I respect your opinion that it doesn't meet GNG, it definitely isn't notable from a mainstream perspective as it isn't covered by well-known mainstream sources. Everything, both primary and secondary, has come from more obscure, lesser known niche sources. That being said, sources do exist (for both GXSCC and Konami SCC), so I thinkWP:N is satisfied there. As for the other points you brought up regardingWP:INDISCRIMINATE, I don't think either of us can make that judgement alone, that would have to come from a consensus. Do you think the draft is improved on the point you made regarding why the reader should care?11WB (talk)07:50, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To stress what I mentioned earlier, notabilitycannot be inherited from the Konami sound chip unless GASHISOFT is directly connected to it in some manner. Similar to how an emulator doesn't inherit notability from the actual console. I also think an explanation of its importance is still lacking in this instance. The closest one I can gather is "it was used heavily by fans to create chiptune covers", but this in itself doesn't seem particularly important unless it can be proven to have had some major impact on the chiptune scene in some way.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)08:09, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph of the reception section does an okay job of acknowledging importance. I think what I'm thinking of doing is moving it to mainspace, then immediately submitting the draft to AfD myself. I don't know if this even an accepted way of doing things, however at least that way the draft could get some discussion without me needing to leave messages on various talk pages on Wikipedia. I'll also copy the work I have done to my sandbox, in a collapsible box, for future use if it does (however likely) end in deletion. It would be good to know if this is even allowed, as it would definitely be an attempt to force a consensus of whatever kind, even though AfD participation is optional.11WB (talk)08:15, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(I obviously wouldn't be trying to force a keep closure in doing that. As the nominator, my vote would automatically be registered as deletion, which actually works in reverse to the outcome Iwould otherwise hope for in this instance.)11WB (talk)08:17, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like immediately trying to AfD your own article would just cause it to be speedy G7'd. You wouldn't get a chance to actually have a discussion on its merits at all. I think what is left here is to wait for Sergecross's opinion and if he believes the exact thing I do, then there is an incredibly small chance it is suitable for mainspace. If he disagrees with me and thinks it's notable, I'll take his word for it and assume I was massively off the mark.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)08:30, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my short experience interacting with you in a few AfDs, I have not yet seen a close for keep where you've !voted for delete, only no consensus–even with the large number votes in the recent D&D discussion. For this reason, I would hold your opinion as pretty set in stone, with few exceptions. Ordinarily, I would be more confident in my opinion, but the sourcing is so out of the ordinary for this particular draft, I am really relying on second opinions. I apologise for having taken up some of your time over this weekend, I really do appreciate the assistance you've provided, it has been extremely helpful!WP:G7 didn't actually cross my mind, but I think that does make sense. I feel like with this draft, I either have to brave up and move it to mainspace, expecting an eventual AfD, or just leave it in my sandbox and hope some more sources eventually surface.11WB (talk)08:43, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Zxcvbnm. I saw this AI character,Tilly Norwood, in the news recently. Curiously, I searched to see if she had a Wikipedia article, and as it turns out, she does. The sources are pretty much all from reliable news reporters, however I feel this comes underWP:RECENTISM,WP:NOTWHOSWHO,WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL,WP:TOOSOON andWP:INDISCRIMINATE. I think an AfD would probably end up assnow keep due to the significant number of sources. I don't think I ambold enough to nominate this, definitely not without a second opinion. Having only just been created and having no starring roles, I don't think Norwood qualifies for an article at all at this time. At this moment, she merely just exists. I'm interested to know your thoughts.11WB (talk)06:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do think this easily falls underWP:TOOSOON, but is another case likeWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clanker where it would probably still be kept due to anticipated future notability andWP:IAR despite technically violating policy. I would just monitor it, and if in several months the amount of coverage is nonexistent, an AfD would likely get far more credence.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)07:16, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To put it another way, oftenWP:NOTNEWS is totally ignored when the news item is major enough as there is no hardline enforcement of the rule like a speedy deletion policy for articles with an incredibly short span of recent coverage. In these cases it can be virtually impossible to get rid of until the news dies down due to the sheer popularity factor.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)07:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the AfD for Clanker after it closed. I would've argued for deletion underWP:NOTDICTIONARY. Though it dates back to 2005, it's obscure (definitely getting deja vu). There are essays for specific topics that get articles for everything, such asWP:SCHOOLCRUFT andWP:TRUMPCRUFT. Maybe AICRUFT would be worth creating? I have a feeling we'll be seeing a lot more of this sort of thing going forward.11WB (talk)07:24, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to write such an essay, then knock yourself out, but I don't think it will make a tangible difference unless there is some sort of more hardline enforcement. It's just a flaw in the design of Wikipedia (though some might call it beneficial as the popularity of such articles attracts numerous new editors who may go on to other pages). The general tactic here is waiting a while and, if it really was just a total flash in the pan, you can point to that retroactively in an AfD.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)07:33, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless Norwood ends up actually being cast in films, which would make her potentially the first AI actress to do so, I don't think this is anything more than a random company usingGoogle Veo to create a person. The benefit to writing an essay is being able to link to that instead of 5 separate policies/guidelines that also fit. One essay has the ability to cover it all on one page and be written in relation to AI specifically.11WB (talk)07:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In late July you warnedKvng here about removing prods, and yet he did it again onMelbourne City Wrestling with the edit summary "numerous incoming links indicate potential importance".[1] If possible could you please reverse that prod? The top of the article indicates serious issues that these links likely do not address and I agree with the reason for the prod. If you could also warn Kvng off again it would be appreciated.2001:8000:1580:CF00:81F:A95B:4C93:77C2 (talk)00:08, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately while I had a whole discussion about it with an admin, their hands are tied due to the extremely permissive policy for removing PRODs. I think that it's rather spurious but you can remove a PROD for any reason, even a gut instinct or hunch with zero evidence, and not be punished at all for mass removal of PRODs for no reason. He is also not going through and deleting every single PROD so it can't properly be called disruptive. Your only recourse is sending it to AfD.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)03:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I wanted to let you know I've declined yourG4 speedy deletion nomination ofAggro Crab because the current article is not sufficiently similar to the one deleted via discussion. Specifically, the new article cites multiple sources that were not provided in the previous draft nor in the deletion discussion. If you think the Aggro Crab still fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines, feel free to re-nominate for deletion viaAFD. Thank you!Significa liberdade(she/her) (talk)17:42, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingFile:Warcraft Emberthal.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of non-free 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 (seeour policy for non-free media).
Some years ago I expandedJin Kazama to make it worth GA but nowadays that the notability guidelines changed, I tried expanding some parts about the reception since besides some books, Jin's character became more notable thanks to the Tekken 8 story mode. You think some parts are worth removing? It bugged me it became so big and I wondered if some sources are better removed. Feel free to edit it if you want to be bold.Tintor2 (talk)22:18, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed to be unanimous amongst those who made a definitive statement. With regards to your comments, I didn't see clear support or opposition of the nomination, just raising some concern about recentism which was essentially moot since this is not moving the 2025 film to primary, just saying there is no primary with regards to the 1975 film, 2025 film and given name of unclear notability.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)12:07, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
