Jump to content

User talk:Zxcvbnm

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sjorrieporrie (talk | contribs) at 14:49, 24 July 2022 (Added bullets). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

List of fictional deities (2nd nomination)

An AFD you participated in is now restarted by the same nominator as last time. All past participates are being contacted.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional deities (2nd nomination) Dream Focus 16:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider becoming a New Page Reviewer?

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge)

Hi Zxcvbnm,

I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join the new page reviewing team. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; the new page reviewing team needs help from experienced users.

Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, most pages are easy to review, and habits are quick to develop). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR. If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page or at the reviewer's discussion board.

Cheers, and hope to see you around, (t · c) buidhe 17:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Peters

Just canceling the PROD doesn't solve the problem of an unsourced article w/ notability not proven under WP:NVG. You made reference to "the Metacritic test," which I've never heard of. I see a few passing mentions in essays, but no policy page explaining what it is. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Just Another Cringy Username: Long story short, the game has enough reviews from reliable sources obviously visible on Metacritic to be a notable topic. Again, WP:NEXIST, what determines whether a game is notable is whether sources exist, but not whether they are currently in the article yet. That is known as a "surmountable problem" and does not justify deletion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do all these games really rate their own individual articles, though? Is there no piece of pop culture too picayune for the inclusionist fanboys? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its literally based on WP:GNG, a general policy. Being inclusionist or a fanboy has nothing to do with it. If you think Wikipedia in general is too inclusionist, then well... tough break, I guess. But there are still countless games that cannot be included going by this policy, so it's not like anything and everything is allowed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second try - draft is now recast completely

Hi Zxcvbnm. I'm an experienced editor so I generally don't submit drafts for review, but I was hesitant about my work on Draft:Mark Cheverton, and sure enough, you declined it a year ago. I wasn't surprised; I felt it was borderline.

On your talk page at User talk:Zxcvbnm/Archive 3#Mark Cheverton you suggested that I recast the draft to be about the author's books rather than the author himself. Only just today I finally got around to doing that. You're right, it's a better article.

I have chastised others for unilaterally moving a draft into article space after it was declined (and I have blocked newbies who have done this repeatedly, but they were hell-bent on promoting whatever it is they wrote about). Even though I've rewritten and expanded the draft, I am reluctant to ignore my own advice to others. Would you please let me know if you object to moving this into article space?

Draft:Mark Cheverton is now a redirect to Draft:Gameknight999. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move Backgammon (1979 video game)

Hi. I see you moved the above-referenced page from Backgammon (video game) to where it presently is. Since this is the only article we have about a video game called "Backgammon" why is it necessary to move it to disambiguate? I'm happy to leave this article where it is so long as there's a policy reason for the move. FOARP (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP: See Backgammon (1988 video game). I guess it was not added to the DAB page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks, makes sense! FOARP (talk) 11:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sort keys

Hi, while you are nominating categories for renaming e.g. X in fiction to Fiction about X, please would you insert fixed sort keys, so that the sort key X is not lost when X is no longer the first word? E.g. [1] – Fayenatic London 22:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london: Oops, my bad! ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jolt Physics

Hello,

Thank you for reviewing my draft! First of all, sorry if I'm reaching out in the wrong way (I'm new to this).

I feel that making Jolt Physics part of the Decima engine is not really appropriate. Even though the library is used by Decima it is completely standalone and not related to it. Also, adding it there would make it impossible to link to it from the Physics engine page.

In the 5 months since it has been released, Jolt Physics has already surpassed the popularity of many of the physics engines that have been in that list for a very long time (using github stars as popularity measure):

These are not hosted on github, so I can't use the same metric:

That's about half of the physics engines listed.

For reference, this is Jolt Physics: https://github.com/jrouwe/JoltPhysics - 1.9k stars

Would you please reconsider approving?

Sjorrieporrie (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zxcvbnm&oldid=1100170940"