User talk:Zxcvbnm
Index
|
||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia.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. |
Re: Cait Sith move[edit]
Left a shout on there, but I agree with the move. However, the more I dig into things, I think it may be a better idea to move it to Cait Sith (Final Fantasy VII), because apparently there's another major Cait Sith in the franchise. Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Does the category for games using proced. gen. deserve to stay?[edit]
Hi, again. I have listed Category:Video games using procedural generation for deletion because it's not defining and kind of lame as thousands of games (that are not even listed) including hundreds of sandbox, strategy, and city building games all have some sort of randomly-generated maps. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 22:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
"Blagger" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]
The redirect Blagger 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/2024 May 18 § Blagger until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 11:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Wussuuuup!!![edit]
Howdy Zxcvbnm! Have you noticed something? I recently manually moved all articles and subcategories that were in Category:Video game gameplay to other desirable categories. I did this due to the fact that any gameplay element would also be a video game term, and I want to avoid overcategorization and inconsistency. I hope you agree with this change. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- @QuantumFoam66: This would have properly been a matter for CfD merge proposal, not manually doing it yourself, in order to make sure your changes actually stick.
- I have no personal issue with it, as I previously attempted to fold the gameplay category into a different one (which, btw, was opposed) but if someone does happen to disagree and decides to reverse your changes, your effort may be wasted. Next time I'd suggest a discussion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Zxcvbnm,
I think this was too soon for a SNOW close. Typical snow closes have 8-12 Keep votes and no Delete votes and this had a fraction of that total. Please do not cut discussions off too short, there is really nothing controversial for letting a discussion run 7 days unless there is a mammoth level of Keep support which wasn't the case here. I'm not saying that I would have closed it differently a week after it was opened, I just know from experience that you don't want to give an editor a reason to bring a closure to Deletion Review. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)