User talk:Zxcvbnm

Proposed merging of Category:Male chefs

While merging is fine, you should have also put up the female chef categories for merging as well. You don't do one and not the other. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 06:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

@Mr. C.C.: That's because arguably being a female chef is defining for its relatively greater rarity while being a male chef is not. [1] [2] ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

While that may be, it might get nominated in the future if you go by the comments in the discussion. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 23:33, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

That's just my opinion for why I didn't nominate female chefs. If it turns out people don't find it defining either, that's no skin off my back. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

FYI

FYI, because you wondered why I didn't block that editor, I explained it here. Totally agree with was inappropriate, just hoping someone else takes care of it so it doesn't get messy. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 13:05, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, understood. Still I don't think people would've blamed you for it. At least, I sincerely hope they wouldn't. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Help with Draft:Crypto:The Game submission

Hi @Zxcvbnm — thanks for reviewing the draft. I’d appreciate clarification on the notability concern, since the current version cites multiple independent, reliable, and in-depth sources, including:

- A multi-page feature in Wired (March 2025), which documented the gameplay and social dynamics in detail: "I Went Undercover in Crypto’s Answer to ‘Squid Game.’ It Nearly Broke Me" by Joel Khalili.

- Detailed acquisition coverage in Fortune (June 2024), covering the Uniswap Labs deal and CTG’s rise as a 24/7 crypto reality show: "Uniswap Labs acquires ‘Crypto: The Game’" by Niamh Rowe.

- Reporting in Axios (April 2024) on CTG’s partnership with Adidas and branded NFT drops: "Exclusive: Adidas quietly steps into crypto gaming partnership" by Crystal Kim.

- A full interview in GoldDerby (May 2025), focusing on the show's Emmy prospects and reality TV inspirations: "How one ‘obsessive’ reality TV fan created ‘Crypto: The Game’" by Marcus James Dixon.

- An original feature in the Television Academy’s Emmy Magazine (June 2025), highlighting the show’s competitive format and social gameplay: "How Crypto: The Game Brings Survivor-like Competition to Online".

- A Variety Emmy preview (June 2025), naming Crypto: The Game as “one to watch” in the Emerging Media category and describing it as a viral sensation drawing global attention: [3]()

All coverage is secondary and independent, with no material sourced from the subject or affiliated parties, but if I’ve misunderstood any sourcing requirements or you recommend additional context, I’d appreciate the guidance, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HotPotato26 (talk • contribs)

The first article is definitely WP:SIGCOV. However, the rest are, in order: trivial announcement, trivial announcement, WP:PRIMARY source, primary source, trivial coverage. I am not seeing WP:GNG being passed here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up @Zxcvbnm. I’d love to clarify a couple points and welcome any further thoughts.

On the sourcing front: while I understand the caution around announcements and primary sources, I believe some of these merit a closer look as in-depth, independent coverage.

• The Fortune piece isn't just a press release rehash. It includes commentary from both Uniswap and the CTG creators, contextualizes the acquisition in the broader crypto landscape, and draws comparisons to other emergent media formats.
• The Axios piece includes original reporting on the Adidas x CTG NFT collaboration and situates the partnership in a broader trend of crypto-native brand activations.
• The GoldDerby and Television Academy pieces are based on interviews, but they contain substantial editorial framing and analysis, and were published independently by reliable media outlets.
• The Variety article offers editorial judgment by including CTG in its Emmy preview as a notable "one to watch" in the Emerging Media category. This feels more evaluative than trivial.

If these still don’t rise to WP:SIGCOV under your interpretation, I’m happy to refine further or seek out additional sources. Just hoping to ensure I’m aligned with the notability framework.

Thanks again for your time and guidance, it's much appreciated. HotPotato26 (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't say I agree with your characterization of any of the sources. Still, you are welcome to seek a second opinion, I'm just trying to objectively inform you of what the majority of editors will say in an AfD discussion.

My search for significant sources turned up nothing besides the aforementioned WIRED article, which, while good, doesn't fulfill the criteria on its own. If you want to look for more, be my guest, but it seems like this is a WP:TOOSOON situation, and you will have to wait for further coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:50, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, @Zxcvbnm — totally fair, and I appreciate the perspective. I still believe the coverage reflects notability beyond a single mention, particularly with the Wired, Fortune, Axios, and Emmy-related features, but I understand your view that it may not yet rise to the threshold for WP:GNG.

That said, I may seek a second opinion to help ensure a balanced read across the draft and sourcing. Either way, I’ll continue monitoring for broader coverage as the project evolves. HotPotato26 (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Ran across this for Palicoes

https://www.endlessmode.com/video-games/monster-hunter/monster-hunter-wilds-would-be-better-if-we-could-play-as-the-weird-cat-sidekicks

Endless Mode is a part of AV Club and Paste magazine, so it should be a RS. That said this is definitely sigcov. Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

@Kung Fu Man: So is this an "I will actually consider the article notable if you recreate it" shout-out? I just want to be sure. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:53, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

BTW, there's also this, apparently: [4] Wilds definitely brought about more coverage of them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm saying go for it. Gemma might be viable too but I've been holding off as I'm worried about SUSTAINED there.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Ecigs

If you have any idea it would be great if you could comment at Talk:Electronic cigarette#What info should be in what articles? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:54, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Deletion nominations via AFD and PROD

Hey, I noticed that from the video game relation deletion discussion like 25+ PROD and AFD are from you. I don't think there is a limit, but I also don't know what the previous precedent on the number is. My concern is that it isn't feasible for someone from the inclusionist side to comment and we just get soft deletes on most. Regards IgelRM (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "from the inclusionist side". Are you implying that the deletions are ideologically motivated, i.e. because I am a "deletionist"? That is a strong accusation and would need some evidence. I am just cleaning up articles that have few to no sources and fail a WP:BEFORE, this is not about "deletionism".

If you have some evidence that I am ignoring valid sources for articles then I will definitely slow down and check even more carefully, but I am confident that every page I nominate is a GNG/NCORP failure. Given that I check thoroughly, I don't see a need to slow down unless I am clearly making an error. The idea that they all have to be vetted by "someone from the inclusionist side" makes no sense, that is just an impediment to cleaning up spam. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I will also add that a soft delete is like that on purpose precisely for this reason. If you do find sources later, Undeletion exists and can be requested for any reason. However, it is the article creator's WP:BURDEN to demonstrate sources upfront. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply ideological motivation; I do believe that you are trying to go by current standards. From my observation, we are systemically going through many articles now that have been on WP for like 10+ years and weren't really questioned some years ago. So it felt like a larger cleanup that has started, which is what I meant with the "inclusionist" phrasing. IgelRM (talk) 07:34, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

2021 Tri-State tornado close

Hi there, thank you for your close at Talk:2021 Tri-State tornado#Requested move 21 May 2025. I take no issue with your conclusion and this is not a challenge. I was wondering if you could clarify the meaning of this sentence: Not only is "Tri-State" usually capitalized in Google Ngrams, but the proposed formatting even more heavily implies a COMMONNAME that doesn't actually seem to exist. There was considerable opposition to the claim that it is usually capitalized in this context and it is not clear why retaining the capitalization is less suggestive of a "common name"—is this because "tornado" remains lowercase?

I know these things can become heated, and tone in writing often sounds harsher than intended, so I want to again emphasize that I am not challenging the outcome, merely seeking clarification. I hope this is put to bed now but in the event another editor reopens the discussion, I want to make sure I (and others) understand the closing rationale. Thanks again for closing, and for all your thoughtful contributions to the project. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:06, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

With regards to the common name part, I simply believe that "___ tornado of 2021" diverges enough from the typical naming scheme that it sounds like a name that was coined outside of Wikipedia, when there isn't actually one. The typical formatting on Wikipedia is "2021 ___ tornado", such as 2020 Monroe tornado, 2020 Jonesboro tornado, 2019 Havana tornado, etc. This would be the case regardless of capitalization, and I think people agreed it was suboptimal.

With regards to capitalization, it seems that Tri-State is often capitalized. One recent example is [5] here. That said, I think there was "no consensus" about the capitalization part. The closure was only to state that the original move request failed, but you are free to do another move request solely about capitalization, as it would count as something entirely different (if you can have a good argument that capitalization is wrong).

That said, I would heavily not recommend it unless you can confirm the page is notable and shouldn't be merged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! I agree the rather grandiose "___ tornado of 2021" title suggests a true name and is out or step with other tornadoes. I disagree about the caps but I'm moving on—someone call a wellness check if I reopen this discussion! Cheers, --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Grok (chatbot)

Hi, thank you for acting as closer in this discussion.

I do note that the decision to not move Grok is surprising. While RM discussions are not vote-counting, you have 8 editors + OP in favour of this, with 2 editors opposed. The proposed move also seems well-supported by the WP:NOPRIMARY and WP:DPT guidelines. Can you further explain why you believe this is "no consensus"? 162 etc. (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

The argument that the word has longterm significance was very strong, as it has existed for decades longer than the chatbot, and the counterarguments that the page should be moved either (a) offered no reasoning beside pure personal belief (see WP:NOTAVOTE), or (b) argued purely based on pageviews while not attempting to counter the argument that longterm significance should override pageviews.

That said, since it was no consensus, you are free to propose another move with a stronger argument solely for the word page to be moved. I did not want to lock off any further discussion about it, but the move proposed in that discussion was clearly a nonstarter. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

> The argument that the word has longterm significance was very strong, as it has existed for decades longer than the chatbot

This is actually not a strong argument at all. Per WP:DPT, "historical age is not determinative." The relative age of the two words should not be considered when determining the primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

All it means is that the historical age is not the be all end all of the discussion. "This thing is older!" should not immediately end the discussion, but it can still absolutely be considered when making a decision.

In any event, I'm not interested in debating this ad infinitum, so if you mean to contest the close you can, otherwise I have already stated my reasoning extremely clearly. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Move review for Grok (chatbot)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Grok (chatbot). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. 162 etc. (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Draft talk:Impact of the September 11 attacks on entertainment § Was the point to create a new article or re-write the existing list?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Draft talk:Impact of the September 11 attacks on entertainment § Was the point to create a new article or re-write the existing list?. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 10:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)