User talk:(Oinkers42)

I noticed you've been moving a bunch of games from the Cancelled [system] Games categories into the main Cancelled Video Games category on the grounds that they're meant only for cancelled ports of released games. Problem is...I don't remember that ever being established? It also complicates ongoing efforts to improve the lists of cancelled video games, so if you can link me to the discussion where this was decided, it would be much appreciated. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@Cyberlink420: I believe this was established via Category:Cancelled video games's description. "Video games that only had releases on specific platforms cancelled should diffuse down to subcategories.". I asked about creating a category for these completely unreleased games a couple of months back, but I got told to just use this category for it. I just decided to WP:BE BOLD and implement the original purpose of the category. (Oinkers42) (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

But...that wasn't its original purpose? That category and all the subcategories existed for years without that description, so it's not really accurate to say that's how it started. Maybe it's just me, but based on how the categories have been used up until now, my understanding had always been that any game for a system that was never released, be it that specific port or the game as a whole, goes in the accompanying subcat, with the main cat used for games that are known to have been cancelled but never had a platform officially announced, like Chrono Break. That also serves to keep the main "List of [system] games" categories organized by having their cancelled games in a separate category. For example, I disagree that Robotech: Crystal Dreams should go in the standard "Nintendo 64 games" category by virtue of the fact it never came out, and thus any reliable source listing "all the N64 games" wouldn't include it in their list. Having a game cancelled for a system not be listed in a category for cancelled games on that system simply seems counterintuitive. I think this is something that needs to be discussed first with other VG project members to establish scope for the categories. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi there. I see that you've largely, but not entirely, depopulated Category:Fictional princesses. Has this been discussed anywhere? In any case, what criteria are you using to keep articles in the category? Thanks. Tevildo (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

@Tevildo: The only articles that I have kept are those about fictional characters that are princesses. I removed every redirect (save for Elwing, which I kept in line with WP:INCOMPATIBLE), and I removed every article that is about a work that merely features princesses (for instance, Cinderella is about the folk tale, not the fictional character). I also plan on removing all of the legendary characters to potentially place in their own category. (Oinkers42) (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the information. I'd have kept Oto-hime and Angelica and Medoro by that standard, and distinguishing between "fictional", "mythical", and "legendary" might be tricky, but the rest of your deletions seem to be consistent. Tevildo (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:HeyDudeLogo.webp. 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) 18:28, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, (Oinkers42). This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Relationship of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Category:Pete's Dragon has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you reverted an edit made from a talk page discussion. I'd recommend taking part in the discussion first before doing this. Signed, SleepyRedHair. (talk - contribs) 18:52, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Looks like AlwaysBlaze (talk · contribs) moved Draft:Glossary of Fortnite terms to mainspace before it was even close to completion, similar to Draft:Hero (Dragon Quest series) but was not warned for it (or at least, the warning did not mention the Fortnite draft by name). Pinging @Rockfighterz M and Hurricanemaster089 here as well so they're aware; Rockfighterz stated they are currently working on the Fortnite draft, and Hurricane reverted Blaze's move of Draft:Minecraft (Movie franchise) to mainspace for the same reason. I should note however, that Blaze does not appear to have done this again since they were warned. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 17:50, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Gommeh: I was personally thinking of waiting until they take action again before making the next move. See if they see and respect the warning (though I wish that it properly placed it in a new section). (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2026 (UTC)