User talk:Zxcvbnm

I significantly updated Draft:Brookhaven RP and I am now assuming if both the sources and the formatting of the draft have met Wikipedia's standards and policies or not and if there are possibilities in which you will lift the rejection if the draft page has met those standards. MrDevolver (talk) 11:03, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

It looks to me like you had an AI chatbot rewrite it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not going to throw out AI accusations without evidence, but regardless of that, it's obviously unencyclopedic due to being written like an advertisement. The sourcing also continues to be poor - see WP:AKON. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:05, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi. I just wanted to have your thoughts about it and may be interested to chime in at . Thanks! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:54, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I thought you would be interested so I decided to consult with you. I have made a draft on Koopalings from the Mario franchise. Although I would have recreated without any co-operation but there was a merge discussion on the Koopalings talk page, where you were involved too, and the talk page also suggested creating a draft first before restoration. Can you look over the draft and review it, or give suggestions? Kazama16 (talk) 11:20, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Please reopen this discussion. It was never necessary to prove that "Peters" was the overwhelming common name. Srnec (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I stand by my discussion closure, and while maybe overwhelming was the wrong word to use, it wouldn't change what I believe is the outcome as I'd just remove the "overwhelming". Some of the most major sources discussing the topic were shown to use "Pedros". Since it's no consensus, you are welcome to do a new move discussion with a stronger argument later, as obviously the extremely simple argument of COMMONNAME did not cut it for some people. I would urge you to wait and do another move discussion rather than the "nuclear option" of move review, and I promise not to close any 2nd discussion that may happen. If you still feel that you must conduct a review, that is unfortunate, but I'm not just going to walk back any closure I do simply because one side disagrees.

You may wish to ping people next time you reply if it's an urgent argument that immediately needs response. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:32, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Excluding Villalon and Kagay, 76 Gscholar hits for Pedros and 121 for Peters. As I said in the discussion, the apparent advantage of Pedros is due mainly to citations of their works. Now, that the historians writing in English who have devoted the most attention to this episode prefer this form is itself a good argument for it. But as I also pointed out, we do not call the Pedros in question Pedro or Pere but Peter, unlike Villalon and Kagay. Srnec (talk) 02:29, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I think you have a legitimate point, but Ngrams was also brought up in the discussion and points in the other direction, strongly towards "Pedros". Going further, "Pedro of Castile" comes up more than "Peter of Castille", potentially indicating issues with calling "Peter" their WP:COMMONNAME as well. I encourage you to make another move discussion, but you will need to bring extremely strong evidence to the table that Ngrams should be totally ignored in this instance. The rationale for the now-closed discussion was extremely weak. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:37, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi! :) Was wondering if the original Asteroids page is now to rename given there is now an article about the remake? Timur9008 (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Probably not. The original Asteroids is likely so major that it would fall under WP:PDAB#(video game) akin to Portal (video game) and Portal (1986 video game). You can certainly try an RM but it will likely fail. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:21, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Looks like someone already started a move discussion. Timur9008 (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Space_Invaders_(1999), but can you tell me which sources you didn't consider reliable? Yes, there's a lot of IGN content, but also Wired. Apart from IGN, there aren't many sites that carried gaming news in that area that are still easily accessible today.

If you give me a hint of what you're looking for, I can try to find additional references... print magazines? Retrospective books? To be honest, though, I'm not sure what purpose that serves; surely there's no doubt that this game existed, was materially different from the 1978 original, and was generally as described in the cited sources? AlcibiadesDX (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I found these sources you can use , , , , Timur9008 (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, as Timur said above you should use some or all of those sources. As for what is reliable or not, if it's not listed in WP:VG/S it's likely unreliable (if it's not some magazine publication), the page also has a list of unreliable or situational sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:58, 23 April 2026 (UTC)