User talk:Zxcvbnm

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

This is a Wikipedia user 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 than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zxcvbnm.

Deathclaw and Tonberry

I got some sources together that should help revive the articles, some of differing value (but most usable). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List

"End-of-life" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect End-of-life has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 27 § End-of-life until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:55, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]