User talk:Kung Fu Man

It's very poor writing, and it's completely excessive. There are no good articles, never mind Good Articles or Featured Articles, in which individual reviews get that much space. Find me one--and maybe explain why something from www.destructoid.com should get so much attention. What even is www.destructoid.com? Drmies (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@Drmies I'm a bit baffled by your response, because many video game articles, let alone character articles, get "that much space" in commentary regarding the characters. In fact, it's pretty much standard as can be seen in stuff such as Raichu or other articles on my user page if you want to check.

Destructoid in this case is also regarded as a reliable source, and Jonathan Holmes has written for a multitude of publishing outlets, even if I find his opinion to be bullocks in regards to that character. It's been that way for at least the last ten years with consensus clearing backing up that's how to approach reception sections for these articles. To boot, your swing was more of a wholesale cleaving than a tightening of prose, and the response here far too aggressive.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

User talk page stalking I should also chime in that the appearances section deletion was pretty heavy-handed; while the excessive detail is obviously a problem, having no information whatsoever explaining her role in these games is significantly worse. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Redirects you have created have 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/2026 March 4 § Incorrectly ranged List of Pokémon redirects until a consensus is reached. Mathguy2718 (talk) 04:41, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Anran is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of 11WB -- 11WB (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Anran has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. 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. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of 11WB -- 11WB (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey, what happened with the Block Breaker genre? StarStorm10 (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I am in the process of making an article for the Thunderjaw from the Horizon franchise. I was just wondering since you have experience with video game characters if you'd be interested in helping me make a reception section for it? Reception is probably the section I am worst at writing for articles. -- ZooBlazer 00:33, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@ZooBlazer: I did a small tweak on the infobox, those custom params aren't needed and won't really tell the reader much at all. I think your biggest problem though is the article primarily relies on lists but also Valnet sourcing. That's going to sink it fast.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:48, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Those parameters are literally how it is classified in the games hence it being in-universe info similar to a Pokémon typing. I do know the reception needs additional info besides what it currently has. It's just an early reception for now, but it is tougher to find specific things outside of lists. I still need to look though places like reviews of the games. -- ZooBlazer 06:52, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@ZooBlazer: Yeah but they're in Pokemon to help the reader differentiate the Pokemon from one another, and understand commonality between them, and you can cite how it affects overall perception (i.e. Echo from Overwatch looks like she should be Support, and a few sources complained she was Damage as a result). Unless you're planning a series here, it's isolated and a bit cruft-y.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Is this article better? Don't want to move it to main space if it'll just get AfD'd too. -- ZooBlazer 21:18, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I personally wouldn't AfD that article if it went to mainspace. I'd change the title to Machines (Horizon video game series) since we're talking about a literal "species", rather than just machines in general. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:53, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the delayed reply, but I agree with Zx's assessment.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about the title. Cukie suggested the idea to me originally and used Zombies in Resident Evil as an example so that was what I had based the title on. -- ZooBlazer 19:42, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Soldier: 76, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stars and stripes was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

The redirect Touch Fuzzy, Get Dizzy 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/2026 March 17 § Touch Fuzzy, Get Dizzy until a consensus is reached. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:22, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey there, I really appreciate the help you've given me over the course of my time on Wikipedia. Based on the comments I've received, I'm now actively trying to improve my sourcing and verification process to make sure my prose more accurately reflects what sources say without having to rely on others at GAN or FAC to point out issues for me. In the past, you've told me to "slow down". That seems a little difficult for someone like me, but I'm willing to give it a shot. That being said, I've been wondering how best to get myself to slow down. Would you be open to giving me some feedback on my prose or pointing out how I can become a more diligent editor? Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 15:56, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm honestly not in a really good headspace to help there, it's due to a personal matter I don't want to get into. But I'll ping @Pokelego999, they may be able to.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I have only been observing in passing so take my advice with a grain of salt, but I'd say it's largely a case of kind of trying to get articles done and dusted as quickly as possible. I've seen a lot of spurious noms from your end, or noms that follow incredibly quickly after a previous fail or set of comments. It's okay to do so if you feel it's in a good state, but a lot of the time it feels like it's not ensured that everything has been reviewed or completely, 100% finished before a nom goes up (Most notably with Music of Genshin Impact, which got nommed so far ahead of your intended schedule for improvement that it got quickfailed with no improvements). There's also cases of trying to get articles out as fast as possible despite some other editors finding issues with parts of it that may need addressing before a mainspace or nomination.

There's nothing necessarily wrong with trying to work fast, but I feel you're working at a speed right now where you're more focused on getting to the end goal than ensuring the quality of the product heading there at times. Advice wise I'd say: Remember that you don't have to rush things. A nomination or goal won't go anywhere if you take an extra few hours to work on ensuring a given article is in its best state. Perform your due diligence, verify your sources, and take your time researching, especially for bigger topics. I'd also try and listen to the advice of other editors if they give you any and make sure you thoroughly address their concerns, and if you're unsure on how to do so, be willing to seek out other venues and people you can use to get to the end. Obviously use your better judgement, but it should help with getting the ropes of the process down.

You've done relatively solid work from what I've seen so far (Especially for your work at Genshin Impact, that's definitely not a game I expected to see at FAC any time soon). That being said, speed is definitely a factor, and I'd advise some more patience and quality assurance be applied, especially before major noms, to ensure your content is the best it can be. Obviously this is from second-hand experience so take things with a grain of salt where need be, but I do hope this helps with clarifying some matters. Let me know if I can clarify anything further. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:02, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Got it, and thanks for the advice. I think a lot of it has to do with milestones and me subconsciously focusing on getting a certain number of GAs. Sounds good in theory, but it can pressure people into rushing things and I think that's what's going on with me right now. As such, I've done a major restructuring of my user page that removes all the milestones I had mentioned. Hopefully, that takes care of a lot of the pressure I was feeling before. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 20:06, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi. A couple questions. As requested per your edit summary, bringing it up on your talk page:

1. First, you removed a cite ""there's no reason for that much info in the ref, especially if you're not going to include the ISSN and wikilink" I don't think there are any guidelines about not having citations being more filled out a bit more and I don't believe it clashes with any reference style you have going in any serious format. You edited it again removing info here. I don't understand.
2. Remake is a loaded term.. It can imply superiority of one version over another. No source I found has called it this version of the game that either and the source you suppolied did not either. So we shouldn't toss these terms around casually. The best I could find was the game being a parody of the first game, which I have cited in the Game Boy article.
3. I've notice you cite articles a few times where there is no prose backing up what you are saying, but then you have said its in the image in the article. I'm not sure on the validity of that. Could you show me some guideline that gives that the ok? As stated in my summary, and as I'm sure you are aware of as you do a lot of deep dives into material, these are not the most known characters in the world and haven't shown up in any media for the past 25 years. I wouldn't presume anyone would be able to spot the character in a crowd of chibi character from a rough jpeg on IGN from the default picture we have of the character on wikipedia. Can you clarify this?

Thanks. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:23, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• Citation consistency is a very valid argument. One thing brought up several times in reviews even at a GAN level is that some citations are missing details others are not. At a FAC level, I have never seen a requirement for location or editor names, but I have seen ISSNs and wikilinks, and in the absence of ISSNs another identifier that can help confirm the source.
• I feel version implies it's more a direct version of the game akin to a port. The game itself is not just the first game with chibi graphics, as it does include new characters and different characterizations. Maybe a better term is necessary, but that's my argument there.
• As for the last point, there are some cases where a citation just isn't possible with prose and a character's presence in a title or how they appear can fall under WP:SKYISBLUE. This has been valid reasoning across multiple GANs. Granted box art is not the best source, which is why I acknowledged replacing it with another ref was better. But consensus tends to show it as valid.

@Andrzejbanas: I did a tweak on the referencing there, keeping the version wording but making it clear it was developed by Betop, and adding the relevant cite to the inline, moving the GB version to the end. I feel this will help people not get confused why the GB version is being listed separately and specifically.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:41, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Victini, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unova was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I have nominated Characters of Final Fantasy VIII for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria, or help improve the article. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regard to the article's featured status (see review instructions). 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 02:15, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, just a few questions.

I appreciate the feedback on the Domina page and I agree that I'd love to see her get a page, but obviously it needs to be up to Wikipedia's standards which I wasn't aware my initial draft wasn't. Is there a set of guidelines for the specific niche of that articles, or just simply MoS? Just so I'm aware when editing/creating pages like that and the process doesn't repeat itself. I'd eventually like to have a proper page formatted for her as well as others, but as said, properly done.

Apologies if this isn't the area to ask, I just see you're knowledgable on the topic. Tomlesss (talk) 05:26, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

@Tomlesss Oh no it's fine, I was just a bit surprised to see the article. Generally you want to illustrate how the character was received outside of gameplay, in regards to their design and other factors. While gameplay can work, like with Emre there, you want to show it in a discussion outside of the scope of the game. Think like how Bastion or Torbjorn affected how people approached the game early on (and the latter in regards to the perception of turret users in such shooters). Right now Domina doesn't have that. The best bits I found for her was an IGN article that's mostly gameplay, and a blurb from Jade King of TheGamer discussing her sexuality.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:50, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense, I appreciate the feedback and I presume the same can be said for other characters on future articles? Either way, I'll keep it in mind for future contributions and in the meantime, I'll keep scouring for proper citations in regards to things beyond gameplay for her, and while to not get too ahead of the game, potentially future pages. I always appreciate pointers and criticism. Thanks again for the explanation. Tomlesss (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Jetpack Cat is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Sigma (Overwatch) is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Kung Fu Man, are you able to elaborate on your decline here? It doesn't read as an essay to me, and doesn't look like it's drawing its own conclusions or presenting original research. The formatting of the included references are a bit of a mess, but general references (rather than inline citations) are usually acceptable for species articles (especially stubs). nil ^nz 23:44, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

@Nil NZ: That a bit news to me, because from my understanding any opinions or particularly broader observations usually have to be attributed to a source. Especially when it comes to stuff like "it's not especially well known"; that's the sort of informal statement where it makes me want to go "okay, but who's saying that?" and worry it may be WP:OR otherwise, even as a reader.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Ah I getcha now, yeah I can see how that line is an issue. In this case, I think the Verifiability decline would have been a better option (contains a statement not attributed to a reliable source), rather than the essay decline, which is usually reserved for when the entire draft (rather than a single line) appear to be original research. But in either case, I agree it's not quite ready for mainspace yet. nil ^nz 00:12, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi. SkalgarXLR (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

What's wrong with "significant other"? SkalgarXLR (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

It's regarded as WP:CRUFT per consensus on the wikiproject. There are some slim cases where it's viable, but in most instances much like Family or Occupation it's best left out as it doesn't inform the reader about the character's most significant details at a glance.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Ok. SkalgarXLR (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Purah.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Splitpunched (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Sigma (Overwatch) has been placed on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 05:45, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Sigma (Overwatch) has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. 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. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 05:25, 24 April 2026 (UTC)