User talk:Vrxces

	; Archives (Index) ;
	2023/December; 2024/January; 2024/February; 2024/March; 2024/April; 2024/May; 2024/June; 2024/July; 2024/August; 2024/September; 2024/October; 2024/November; 2024/December; 2025/January;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

This is Vrxces's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your GA nomination of Unsighted

The article Unsighted you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Unsighted for comments about the article, and Talk:Unsighted/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of A412 -- A412 (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Schim

The article Schim you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Schim and Talk:Schim/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of A412 -- A412 (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Schim

The article Schim you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Schim for comments about the article, and Talk:Schim/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of A412 -- A412 (talk) 09:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Moida Mansion

The article Moida Mansion you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Moida Mansion and Talk:Moida Mansion/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of BigLordFlash -- BigLordFlash (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Moida Mansion

The article Moida Mansion you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Moida Mansion for comments about the article, and Talk:Moida Mansion/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of BigLordFlash -- BigLordFlash (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of The Sims: Livin' Large

The article The Sims: Livin' Large you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Sims: Livin' Large for comments about the article, and Talk:The Sims: Livin' Large/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LEvalyn -- LEvalyn (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming expiry of your patroller right

Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your permission "patroller" (New page reviewers) will expire on 00:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC). For most rights, you will need to renew at WP:PERM, unless you have been told otherwise when your right was approved. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion. Leaderbot (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Roottrees Are Dead has been accepted

The Roottrees Are Dead, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Roottrees Are Dead has been accepted

The Roottrees Are Dead, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Roottrees are Dead

"Accepting" your own AFC submission is really rather crass, especially when you wait less than a minute to do so. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 03:14, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no worries, I made a mistake of publishing an older draft rather than using the draft's content to create the new article directly. I think it's a harmless faux pas, and don't intend to do that again. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should add that I understand where you're coming from and that this process could easily be used to bypass oversight of a problematic article, but as an extended confirmed user who could have created this from scratch anyway, it seems more like a procedural error than a major issue. If this isn't the case and a more concerning policy oversight, please let me know or escalate as needed. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Façade (video game)

The article Façade (video game) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article needs changes or clarifications to meet the good article criteria. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Façade (video game) and Talk:Façade (video game)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PresN -- PresN (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection/Advice on the Granny draft

I noticed that my draft has been rejected multiple times, and that you were willing to provide advice. If you have a moment, I want to ask you for advice on these to things in the draft: what specifically makes sources reliable (and why the ones I found aren’t), and what kind of information is unnecessary. I apologize for any mistakes I may have made. Signed, Kamenûk (talk – contrib.) 17:31, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Notability is a test to figure out whether a subject warrants an article, with the purpose of making sure Wikipedia covers topics that can be dealt with encyclopedically - that is, as a reliable and independent source of information. In order to do that, it's important to have good enough coverage about something to make sure the subject matter warrants a mention and is covered accurately in all aspects. More information about that is here.

How do we do that? Well, to be notable, there needs to be significant coverage from reliable sources that are not primary sources. Reliable sources in the video game space, like those listed here, tend to be biographical in nature or secondary reviews from reputable publications. What we're trying to look for is evidence of wide coverage from mainstream sources providing commentary about the subject. A general rule of thumb is looking at the three sources that best meet this test, and evaluating whether they demonstrate this rule. More guidance on this can be found here and here.

In Granny, there are six sources:

The first is a link to the Steam page itself. This is useful, but is also a primary source, so it doesn't help us figure out whether the game is notable at all.
The second is a YouTube video about someone discussing the story of the game. YouTube videos are what we call user-generated - that is, anyone can make a video about anything if they're passionate enough. They are generally not reliable sources and especially not if the author themselves isn't really that notable or reputable. More discussion on that is here.
The third is a Newsweek article about how to beat the game. The article is from a reputable publication. However, it's a game guide. It is a useful and reliable source to describe information about the game, but it lacks critical or detailed commentary about the game. Given that we're trying to look for commentary about all the aspects of the game, including its reception, this isn't really a helpful source for overall notability.
The fourth is a Common Sense Media article with a short review about the game. The good news is that this is definitely reliable. But the article's content is a single paragraph 'review'. It provides a basic description of the game and has some limited critical commentary that the game is likely to be "too intense" for kids, is "challenging" and the visuals and art style are not realistic. This is probably barely in-depth enough.
The fifth is a review from a website called God Minded Gaming. This obviously provides very significant coverage of the game and independently describes it well. But the game doesn't seem to be at the standard of reliable sourcing we would need to say the game is notable because it got a review from God Minded Gaming. It appears to be a very niche Christian review website operated by a single person. It's not quite what you would call mainstream coverage.
The final source is the Granny Wiki. Fan wikis have lots of detail, but these are user-generated too, and generally published by anyone. This doesn't help notability, because any sufficiently passionate enthusiast could create a detailed fan wiki about a game they like. More information is available here.

Putting these together, you can see that there just isn't the sourcing so far to say this article has widespread coverage that suggests an article should be made about the game. I'm happy to follow up on this discussing how you might look for reliable sources, but this list and this search engine might be a good start. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And no need to apologise, I'm a pretty curmudgeonly deletionist, so if anything, apologies for any disappointment you've had so far in putting together the article and not being able to see it through. I know that can be a bit discouraging. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Aftershock PC

Hey Vrxces,

Hope you are well. I saw that you declined my Aftershock PC draft and left me a really kind note. I really appreciate that and your detailed advice on how to improve the draft. I understand that it needs more in-depth coverage, and I'll be working on that. However, I have a question regarding the sources. After reviewing several reliable articles, I noticed that CNET (pre-2020) is considered a reliable source. Since the company has two product reviews on the website, is the issue with my article related to the reliability of the source or the credibility of the draft or company itself? Also, I read that having three reliable sources typically increases the likelihood of an article being published. Is that correct?

Please, I’d appreciate your insights on this.

Repsjared (talk) 07:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No stress - happy to chat. A few things - firstly, the main standard at issue is around ensuring the article has a neutral point of view. This is very important as you have disclosed a conflict of interest with the subject matter, meaning the standard might be a little higher, as it usually is for biographies or corporations compared to, say, a video game (which is my area of experience on WP:VG). So the below isn't exactly about that issue per se.

The other standard we're thinking about is notability - is the subject notable enough to warrant an article, and has enough sourcing to reliably verify key information you would expect to find about the subject?

Starting with your last question, the informal rule of thumb (covered in this page) is that if the draft's three "best" sources are reliable sources cover the subject in depth, then it's correct that's a strong reason to consider the subject generally notable. At the moment, the best sources seem to be the Straits Times and A+. These seem to deal with the background of the company in depth, and even though they have interviews which are a primary source, provide reliable commentary about the company. More of this would be very useful, and the article has an okay foundation to have a shot at being considered notable.

However, and this gets to your main question, the CNET product reviews are from a reliable source, and provide information about products of the company. But they don't provide much information about the company itself, just what it sells. This is an issue because there's a general principle that notability isn't really inherited from things a company makes. An example is that we get lots of articles about video game studios where the only sources are about the video games, so there isn't really a point to having an article about a studio without supporting information. Obviously with a History section, that's not quite the same case here, but I hope it helps you understand why the Products section is useful but not essential.

Let me know if you have any other questions! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your prompt and detailed response! I completely understand everything you’ve explained. I’ll work on providing more in-depth information on the company’s history and see if I can include more verifiable sources. I also wasn’t aware that Straits Times and A+ were considered good sources, so I really appreciate the clarification on that. May I ask how you determined their reliability so, I’d love to understand the criteria used? Repsjared (talk) 08:16, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other than looking for listed sources in WP:PERENNIAL or WP:VG/S (or project-equivalent pages) there's no hard and fast rule other than the guidelines given in WP:RS. Publications that are syndicated, have an editorial team, cleary have notable credentials for reporting on news are going to be a good bet. A+ and Vulcan Post are tricker as they look like product discovery journalism, which sometimes can be affiliate, but it seems very helpful with the interviews and background information. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a great deal for your response. Your feedback has been insightful and truly helpful. I will re-work the draft following all your advice. Your are very kind. :) Repsjared (talk) 08:33, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! The drafting process is iterative. If a subject is notable and the sources are out there, an article will get there in the end. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much again, man! I really appreciate your assistance. Would it be okay if I shared my revision with you once done for your feedback? Repsjared (talk) 08:35, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when you resubmit! I'm happy to defer to other opinions too. I think it's close - it just needs more reliable sourcing and focus on the background of the company rather than the products. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I will let you know when I resubmit. Thanks a lot again! Repsjared (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello VRXCES, hope you are well, man. I've just republished an updated article with more reliable sourcing and a stronger focus on the company’s history. Let me know your thoughts! Repsjared (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man,

Hope you are well. Stopping by to say a huge thanks again for your support. The updated article has been approved. Repsjared (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers mate! Have a good one ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, hope you are well. Really sorry to bother you, but may I ask if there is a reason why the Aftershock page still has the major contributor tag? I have tried to raise the issue on removing to no avail, and I am wondering if it's prohibited to do so myself. Please kindly advise. Repsjared (talk) 03:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As on the talk page, probably one for whoever put it there. I'm not sure how they work - I assume they don't go away just because the page is notable and has been published, and it's down to other editors to assess whether edits are needed for tone. I might be completely wrong on that! Worst case, try the COI talk page. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the response! Yes, they don't just go away. I left a message on the talk page and have gotten lead on what the issue is. The editor who placed the COI possibly still has an issue with the page and have made a few deletion. I think it will be up to them to remove it, which is kind of a downer because they are not so welcoming. Anyways, thanks again for all your assistance. Truly appreciate. Repsjared (talk) 08:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Façade (video game)

The article Façade (video game) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Façade (video game) for comments about the article, and Talk:Façade (video game)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PresN -- PresN (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer granted

Hi Vrxces, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:40:23, 1 April 2025 for assistance on AfC submission by KiwiTheGamer

KiwiTheGamer (talk · contribs)
- Neverball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Draft:Neverball (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Is it because the sources are "not good" or do I need like more sources? I don't know, maybe I'm just dumb or something. I really need help. Appreciate a response. Where am sending this message anyways?? KiwiTheGamer (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate - not at all! Basically you need to see if the cited sources or other sources out there have any reviews to create a 'reception' section described here. Sources like the ones listed here are the best bet. There's plenty of ways to find these - check out the search engine, Internet Archive, or aggregators such as Metacritic or Mobygames. Probably the Internet Archive is the best bet. We just need some better evidence that some reliable sources have reviewed the game - or evaluated it in some form - to show it's notable. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on Draft: Kenneth Hurley

Hi VRXCES, OGdonken here, responding to your flag on Draft:Kenneth Hurley. Page subject is a recognised industry name (in fact, the fact that another user has already made edits to the page is a testament to that). Also see the page Mat Dickie, which is equally about an industry name and is light on source material beyond Mat's own website. I've added Hurley's involvement in the upcoming television show, CryptoKnights, which is set to launch next month with a major streaming service, which at the time of launch will receive a lot of mainstream press.

Hi @OGdonken:, with respect - notability isn't determined because someone is recognised or not - it's determined by whether sourcing and coverage makes it possible to provide reliable information about the person. There isn't sourcing that provides significant coverage about Hurley's career in the draft. Looking at Dickie's page, whilst it's not perfect, features good sourcing from articles like this Ars Technica article, which independently and in-depth goes into Dickie's career. The Hurley draft doesn't have that and all of the biographical information is from the wiki-style page and the database which is not a good foundation for an article. On CryptoKnights, that might generate more sourcing, but it's not really possible to speculate that will do so. If this subject is notable, I'm sure there's more in-depth coverage about this person out there! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks VRXCES, that's helpful information. We're dealing with a special case here, it seems. In your view, is there any portion of the draft article that's well-sourced as things currently stand? I'm wondering if by making (sweeping) omissions (i.e perhaps no sub-sections under Career; turning that into just one section that removes some of the less-sourced biographic info) the article as a whole can be saved. What are your thoughts? OGdonken (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Return to Castle Wolfenstein, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Half-Life.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:RCTW Screenshot.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:RCTW Screenshot.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim 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 (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Progressbar95 Update

Hi, I have recently come back to Wikipedia and have updated Draft:Progressbar95 to have WP:THREE reliable sources, namely Lifehacker, Absolute Gamer (AG.RU), and 4Gamer.Net (Japanese), like you have suggested.

Cheers, ThatPB95 Fan (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol May 2025 Backlog drive

May 2025 Backlog Drive \| New pages patrol
On 1 May 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Pages Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Filet O' Fish

TotallynotWario has given you a McDonald's Filet-O-Fish sandwich! Filet-O-Fish sandwiches are very popular during Lent and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Filet-O-Fish sandwich, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the fishy, gooey goodness of Filet-O-Fish sandwiches by adding {{subst:Filet-O-Fish}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

TotallynotWario (talk) 04:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]