22:
420:
570:
worth showing to readers or it isn't). It would seem as if the items higher in the list might take precedence over items lower on the list. In typical
Knowledge fashion the guideline seems to be saying include some detail but not too much detail and we're supposed to guess where the middle is supposed to be. (i.e. don't delete Metacritic from the prose entirely as you did, but probably less of the platform specific detail that I restored.)
437:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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 Knowledge (see
291:
when people ask "hey, how does it become notable". In some cases the article just will never be notable enough, like many niche topics. It only has 2 full reviews from reliable sources, and the third one hinges on the Common Sense Media review as the others are from unreliable sources. Common Sense
624:
This is a super random question, but have you heard this... uh, thingamablob known as "Fundamental Paper
Education." It is very likely not notable for Knowledge, neither is the viral video "Basics in Behavior" that started it. It's the same kind of conflict with Battle For Dream Island, one of the
599:
if you want to argue the policy is wrong, not me as I did not have a hand in writing it. If it were up to me, scores would be usable in prose as I don't think it's "confusing" for a general audience, but as it is, the video game reviews box has to be used if one wants to put scores in an article.
550:
I'm not sure why you are citing VGREC as supporting your point when it says "For example, avoid scores and statistics in prose, which are hard for the reader to parse and often impart little qualitative information. These scores should be limited to the Video game reviews template, if present." It
355:
TheGWW: Doesn't seem reliable. I've literally never seen it used before as a source, and it doesn't list any editors. My guess is that the others are not reliable either. Again, I am speaking from experience that it should probably not be a page. Just "let it go", focus on improving its section in
569:
because a high
Metacritic score based on a small number of reviews is obviously not as significant as a score based on a larger sample of reviews. (I've seen some editors hiding the review number count in a footnote, but that seems like the worst of both worlds, either this information is context
264:
Hey dude! I'm the guy who wrote the Bendy in
Nightmare Run article, and i just noticed thst niche titles sre in your area of interest. With Bendy Run being one, i would like to gain feedback on how to make articles on these kinds of niche video game topics since it's usually hard to find media
292:
Media is very basic, and could fall under trivial coverage. Usually the bar is 3 full reviews to establish notability. That's why I said it's borderline, and you should probably just expand its section in the series article and move on to topics with more coverage.
192:
It is extremely rude to ruin people's hard work and redirect their stubs to other pages just because you don't know enough about a subject to see its relevance. Use the appropriate templates instead of replacing the full contents articles. --
370:
I did say i will proofcheck every website and submit a final time if one is found to be reliable. Since you didn't use theGWW i think you wouldn't know if it is reliable, which i agree with from first glance it doesn't seem
241:
I will also add that with the new sources the article may be safe. But those didn't exist when you first created it. You should endeavor to add such sources when it's created and not expect people to find them for you.
528:
Please also note "Every single-site review source should be used within the reception section. The reviews table supports the text. It is not to replicate the function of external review aggregators."
334:
I may have a third one but i am not sure if these sources fit the criteria: TheGWW, NewsReports and
Dreager1 (which i do not trust from first looks). So far TheGWW looks the most promising.
429:
223:
any of your contributions. Please familiarize yourself with notability policy before making pages or they will likely be deleted or redirected in the same way. There's also
306:
Ah, i see. Hopefully i have 2 more reviews that may fit the criteria to establish notability. If it is not notable i will expand the series article. Again, best regards!
586:
34:
414:
216:
466:
158:. 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
619:
210:
194:
461:
634:
495:
449:
544:
500:
144:
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than
138:
582:
536:
565:
I hadn't realized the guidelines seem to contradict themselves. The preceding sentence to the one you mentioned even says
433:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a
609:
590:
560:
374:
I will not do that today, i'm no rusher, but this is just being 100% sure before i completely abandon the article.
400:
438:
386:
365:
343:
329:
315:
301:
251:
520:
274:
236:
155:
80:
75:
68:
63:
58:
51:
46:
41:
567:"Including the number of reviews that are computed to create the review aggregator score can be helpful"
434:
532:
531:
You can add tables if you want but please do not remove article text as you did in your recent edit.
540:
630:
202:
526:"This template is not required. It supplements the reception section; it does not replace it."
595:
It seems like you have an issue with the policy, but I am only following it. You should go to
259:
8:
396:
382:
339:
325:
311:
270:
626:
491:
472:
187:
113:
574:
513:
506:
457:
198:
535:
If you want to expand the table make sure to first expand the article text. --
392:
378:
350:
335:
321:
307:
288:
282:
266:
356:
the series article, and move on to a different title that got more coverage.
219:. That consensus does not have to include the article creator since you don't
92:
224:
220:
21:
601:
596:
552:
509:
this encyclopedia is supposed to be text first, tables are supplementary.
487:
483:
391:
Oops think i read that wrong, you've never seen it used as a source. Sorry
357:
293:
243:
228:
98:
96:
453:
476:
94:
215:
There is nothing rude about it, as I got consensus to redirect it
471:
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited
577:
is project wide guideline, and prose is supposed to come first
99:
169:
320:
I will make sure to double-check for reliability though.
551:
appears to disprove your point rather than prove it...
475:, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page
579:"Articles are intended to consist primarily of prose"
265:
coverage or critic reviews about them. Best regards!
15:
415:
Orphaned non-free image File:Warcraft
Emberthal.png
448:will be deleted after seven days, as described in
227:if you want to avoid situations such as this.
467:Disambiguation link notification for August 27
450:section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion
444:Note that any non-free images not used in any
512:This principle is specifically reiterated in
107:This page has archives. Sections older than
625:most ever declined subjects on Knowledge.
620:Notability of Fundamental Paper Education
167:. The original talk page is located at
117:when more than 5 sections are present.
122:
501:Tables and games reception sections
13:
418:
14:
645:
111:may be automatically archived by
20:
635:03:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
1:
610:14:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
591:11:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
561:05:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
545:04:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
439:our policy for non-free media
7:
496:07:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
462:00:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
430:File:Warcraft Emberthal.png
287:I tend to direct people to
10:
650:
401:20:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
387:20:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
377:Sorry if i seem stubborn.
366:11:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
344:21:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
330:21:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
316:21:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
302:21:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
275:18:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
252:19:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
237:19:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
203:17:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
419:
424:
427:Thanks for uploading
422:
484:Opt-out instructions
177:ki/User_talk:Zxcvbnm
521:Video game ratings
425:
260:Feedback on drafts
154:you are viewing a
435:claim of fair use
185:
184:
121:
120:
86:
85:
641:
525:
519:
473:Can I Play That?
421:
354:
286:
214:
181:
178:
175:
172:
166:
165:
162:
153:
151:
148:
137:
136:
133:
123:
116:
100:
38:
37:
24:
16:
649:
648:
644:
643:
642:
640:
639:
638:
622:
523:
517:
516:which explains
503:
469:
452:. Thank you. --
417:
348:
280:
262:
208:
190:
176:
173:
171:https://en.wiki
170:
168:
163:
160:
159:
149:
146:
145:
134:
131:
130:
112:
101:
95:
29:
12:
11:
5:
647:
621:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
583:109.77.196.205
571:
537:109.77.197.194
527:
502:
499:
468:
465:
416:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
375:
372:
332:
318:
261:
258:
257:
256:
255:
254:
189:
188:Romhacking.net
186:
183:
182:
143:
139:user talk page
126:
119:
118:
106:
103:
102:
97:
93:
91:
88:
87:
84:
83:
78:
72:
71:
66:
61:
55:
54:
49:
44:
31:
30:
25:
19:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
646:
637:
636:
632:
628:
627:QuantumFoam66
611:
607:
603:
598:
594:
593:
592:
588:
584:
580:
576:
572:
568:
564:
563:
562:
558:
554:
549:
548:
547:
546:
542:
538:
534:
529:
522:
515:
510:
508:
498:
497:
493:
489:
485:
480:
478:
474:
464:
463:
459:
455:
451:
447:
442:
440:
436:
432:
431:
402:
398:
394:
390:
389:
388:
384:
380:
376:
373:
369:
368:
367:
363:
359:
352:
347:
346:
345:
341:
337:
333:
331:
327:
323:
319:
317:
313:
309:
305:
304:
303:
299:
295:
290:
284:
279:
278:
277:
276:
272:
268:
253:
249:
245:
240:
239:
238:
234:
230:
226:
222:
218:
212:
207:
206:
205:
204:
200:
196:
179:
157:
142:
140:
127:
125:
124:
115:
110:
105:
104:
90:
89:
82:
79:
77:
74:
73:
70:
67:
65:
62:
60:
57:
56:
53:
50:
48:
45:
43:
40:
39:
36:
33:
32:
28:
23:
18:
17:
623:
605:
578:
573:Nonetheless
566:
556:
530:
511:
505:Please note
504:
481:
470:
445:
443:
428:
426:
361:
297:
263:
247:
232:
191:
174:pedia.org/wi
128:
108:
26:
156:mirror site
114:ClueBot III
129:This is a
393:OliDaHoli
379:OliDaHoli
351:OliDaHoli
336:OliDaHoli
322:OliDaHoli
308:OliDaHoli
283:OliDaHoli
267:OliDaHoli
81:Archive 8
76:Archive 7
69:Archive 6
64:Archive 5
59:Archive 4
52:Archive 3
47:Archive 2
42:Archive 1
575:WP:PROSE
514:WP:VGREC
507:WP:PROSE
446:articles
371:reliable
27:Archives
602:ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ
553:ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ
488:DPL bot
358:ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ
294:ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ
289:WP:AKON
244:ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ
229:ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ
109:30 days
533:(diff)
477:Exposé
225:WP:AFC
597:WP:VG
581:. --
486:.) --
454:B-bot
211:Beqwk
195:Beqwk
164:pedia
150:pedia
135:pedia
35:Index
631:talk
587:talk
541:talk
492:talk
458:talk
397:talk
383:talk
340:talk
326:talk
312:talk
271:talk
217:here
199:talk
161:Wiki
147:Wiki
132:Wiki
479:.
441:).
221:own
633:)
608:)
589:)
559:)
543:)
524:}}
518:{{
494:)
460:)
399:)
385:)
364:)
342:)
328:)
314:)
300:)
273:)
250:)
235:)
201:)
629:(
606:ᴛ
604:(
585:(
557:ᴛ
555:(
539:(
490:(
482:(
456:(
423:⚠
395:(
381:(
362:ᴛ
360:(
353::
349:@
338:(
324:(
310:(
298:ᴛ
296:(
285::
281:@
269:(
248:ᴛ
246:(
233:ᴛ
231:(
213::
209:@
197:(
180:.
152:,
141:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
