User Talk: HumanxAnthro

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|archiveprefix=User talk:HumanxAnthro/Archive
|format= %%i
|age=2160
|maxarchsize=15000
|numberstart=1
|archivebox=yes
|box-advert=yes
}}

A barnstar for you!

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Writer's Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for your improvements to the critical response section in articles such as ''Angry Birds Go! ↗'' and ''Angry Birds Star Wars II ↗'', they're very well written indeed! ''Signed, SleepyRedHair.'' (talk - contribs ↗) 12:57, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
|}
:Thank you! I'm not perfect, but I try my best. I still have some more work on the ''Star Wars II'' section, because I have an IGN review to add, but I really appreciate the compliment! '''HUMANXANTHRO''' (What you say about his company is what you say about society) 12:59, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

WikiCup 2026 May newsletter

The second round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 28 April. As a reminder for contestants who just joined or are unaware of recent changes to our round-points system, good article nomination reviews ↗ now receive 10 points, an increase from 5 points in the previous year, as per a consensus at WT:CUP ↗. Peer reviews ↗, which continue to be worth 5 points, are now listed in the same section as featured article candidate reviews ↗, rather than with good article reviews. Everyone who competed in round 2 will advance to round 3 unless they have withdrawn or been banned. No other changes to the round-point system have been made for this year.

Round 2 was competitive. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points; nine scored over 500; and fourteen scored over 300. The top seven contestants had at least one featured article ↗ (two of them with two apiece). The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

{{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant17|MCE89}} with 1,333 points, mainly from good and featured articles about Australian people and geography

{{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant17|Generalissima}} with 1,169 points, mainly from good and featured articles related to shipping ethics controversy in fanfiction ↗, waterways, and Gu Yanwu ↗

{{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant17|Bgsu98}} with 1,149 points, mainly from good articles, featured articles, and featured lists about figure skating, along with many article reviews and two good topics

{{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant17|Olliefant}} with 830 points, mainly from good and featured articles about television shows, episodes and media, along with nearly four dozen good and featured article reviews

{{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant17|Gommeh}} with 827 points, mainly from good and featured articles related to ''Genshin Impact ↗'' and ''Honkai: Star Rail''

The full scores for round 2 can be seen here ↗. During this round, contestants have claimed 12 featured articles, 13 featured lists, 2 featured-topic articles, 106 good articles, 22 good-topic articles and more than 40 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 3 In the News ↗ articles, and they have conducted over 200 reviews. The tournament points table ↗ has been updated.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed in Round 3. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed ↗. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup ↗, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send ↗. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Best of console lists

Hello, I'm concerned with the "Best of [console]" lists you've been writing. The scope being a console feels arbitrary. Take the GameCube, for example. The fact that those games came out on GameCube is not relevant to their critical reputation. Video games can be multiplatform. Games that are exclusive are often so because of licensing agreements or arbitrary developer choice. And many exclusives were ported or re-released later anyways, and are still appreciated the same as ever. All consoles have their quirks and limitations that make them unique, but the art and discipline of game-making is approached the same no matter which console we're talking about. We may as well write about "Best French games" or "Best games released in the 1980s" because, like the platform, those are defining characteristics but have no bearing on a game's quality or critical reception. Did you think or discuss about any of this before working on these lists? '''TarkusAB''''''talk'''/'''contrib''' ↗ 06:57, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

{{Ping|TarkusAB}} I have absolutely no idea why you're interpreting these pages like this. No claim about the console being "a defining characteristic" of the game's quality or reception is being made: they're simply widely considered the best releases on each console, nothing more, nothing less. It's not arbitrary, as to get a game on the table, it has to specifically make '''two or more reliable sources listing ''the best of a console'' specifically''', regardless of its Metacritic aggregate or high marks at the time of release. The console game lists are not necessarily of the most well-received games, but, as with List of video games listed among the best ↗, games that have made several "best-of console" lists that are from the WP:VG/RS ↗ we determine notability criteria based off of. WP:NLIST ↗ is the relevant policy, and sources write articles, not ''our'' subjective opinions. If multiple reliable sources cover the best games of a console as a group (especially 16-to-30 lists), the subject is notable enough to warrant a list page. As the policy page says:

*{{xt|"One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists through methods such as only including entries for independently notable items."}}

This also means that if multiple sources cover "Best French games" or "Best games released in the 1980s" ''as a group'', we absolutely could write an article or list page on the subject and come up with a WP:CONSENSUS ↗ to limit entries if need be. In fact, we could for sure for make a best-of 1980s page, given the following: https://www.theguardian.com/games/2021/may/27/the-15-greatest-video-games-of-the-80s-ranked ↗ https://www.gamesradar.com/best-games-80s/ ↗ https://www.newsbreak.com/outrun-gaming-324650867/4468495206528-10-best-games-of-the-1980s ↗ https://www.cnet.com/pictures/the-classic-80s-arcade-games-we-loved-the-most/ ↗ http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/950/950214p3.html ↗ https://www.avclub.com/the-25-best-nintendo-games-of-the-1980s ↗ https://www.denofgeek.com/games/15-1980s-pc-games-that-ahead-of-their-time/ ↗ https://www.thestar.co.uk/retro/1980s-classic-video-games-do-you-remember-5175038 ↗ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/video-game-news/9220399/ZX-Spectrum-the-best-games-of-the-1980s.html ↗. If you want to discuss the inclusion criteria of each page, we can do that. '''HUMANXANTHRO''' (What you say about his company is what you say about society) 13:49, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I also don't dispute some of the entries were also multi-platform games, but because the list sources are limited to each console, it's ''obviously only that port or console version of the game'' getting on each table, not all versions of it. If another port makes a bunch of best-of list sources for the respective console, it will make the table for that console. Also, shittier ports of what were originally great games have been a staple of gaming since the industry began. '''HUMANXANTHRO''' (What you say about his company is what you say about society) 13:52, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, I didn't "discuss any of this" because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy ↗ and I don't need permission to do every single thing on this website, plus the aforementioned precedents set to do this. Hope this helps! :) '''HUMANXANTHRO''' (What you say about his company is what you say about society) 14:15, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

:I am only expressing concern that these lists feel too incomprehensive to be encyclopedic, and that they expand the boundaries of what's acceptable too broadly, and was asking if you had considered these issues beforehand or discussed it anywhere. That is all. I was not suggesting you needed permission.

:I understand NLIST. I just feel the sources used are more clickbait-y in nature and not comprehensive enough to base an encyclopedia article on. List of video games listed among the best ↗ is valid because it's comprehensive, and reflective of how video games are typically assessed by critics and scholars (that is, within the context of all games ever). '''TarkusAB''''''talk'''/'''contrib''' ↗ 21:39, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

*{{ping|User:TarkusAB}} I just want to understand this. "too incomprehensive to be encyclopedic"? Like, they're stub-length or something? 45 ↗, 70+ ↗, 90+ ↗, even 100+ ↗ games ↗ overlapping multiple console generations aren't comprehensive? The sources "feel" "clickbait-y in nature and not comprehensive enough to base an encyclopedia article on"? Lolwut? What does that even mean? I don't mean to be rude or antagonistic, but feelings are not evidence, and none of the sources are clickbait ↗-y in any manner. Clickbait doesn't mean a piece with a catchy, eye-appealing title, otherwise all of the all-console best-game special features would fall under the definition; it means that the headline of a title of a internet page ''misleadingly or doesn't even represent'' the contents within it (e.g. promising advice on how to make money in the video games industry, but the content proposes getting a normal-salary job within it or some other revenue source that isn't profitable for 99% of those who try it), and sources that resort to those methods are generally considered unreliable and/or are so hidden they don't appear in Google results. The headlines of the sources cited in the console list pages were not only easy to find on Google and Archive.org, but promise readers a list of the best games on, say, the Xbox 360, and guess what you get... what the editors of each source thought were the best games on the Xbox 360. The comparison between the IGNs and GameSpots running these lists (which may I remind you, have also published the list sources for the page you don't have "comprehensive" or "encyclopedic" concerns about ↗) and a genre of media exemplified by chumbox ↗ content, Gawker Media ↗ and Breibart ↗ is outrageous. If you want to express that, I can't stop you, but WP:Wikipedia is not a soapbox ↗ or a WP:FORUM ↗ for expressing that, and if you're going to have a discussion about this with other contributors, claims about sources not establishing notability for a topic cannot just be based on vibes.'''HUMANXANTHRO''' (What you say about his company is what you say about society) 22:38, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Posting here since it concerns the same articles. I see you have created some of the lists with console abbreviations. However this is not consistent between the own lists (e.g. the NES list got an abbreviation, but the Game Boy Advance one did not [to GBA]), and I think the titles should reflect the actual console names, as it is with other lists (e.g. List of PlayStation (console) games (A–L) ↗). I think the following should be moved:

NES games listed among the best ↗ → Nintendo Entertainment System games listed among the best ↗

SNES games listed among the best ↗ → Super Nintendo Entertainment System games listed among the best ↗

PS1 games listed among the best ↗ → PlayStation (console) games listed among the best ↗

Skyshiftertalk 20:13, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

*'''Whatever works'''. I wanted to make the titles as simple as possible, because titles and the first sentences of the leads of articles have been increasingly preferred by the community to be as simple as possible, so I only used the abbreviations when the full names were ''really'' long, such as the case with the Nintendo examples. '''HUMANXANTHRO''' (What you say about his company is what you say about society) 20:19, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nintendo 64 games listed among the best ↗, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Realism ↗ was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Video games listed among the best of the PlayStation (console) ↗, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Video game character ↗ was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

WikiCup 2026 July newsletter

The third round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 28 June at 23:59 (UTC). As a reminder, good article nomination reviews ↗ now receive 10 points, while peer reviews ↗, which continue to be worth 5 points, are now listed in the same section as featured article candidate reviews ↗, rather than with good article reviews. Everyone who competed in round 3 will advance to round 4 unless they have withdrawn or been banned. No other changes to the round-point system have been made for this year.

Round 3 was competitive. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points; eight scored over 500; and thirteen scored over 300. The top three contestants had at least one featured article ↗ (two of them with two apiece). The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

{{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant17|MCE89}} with 1567 points, mainly from good and featured articles about Australian people and geography, as well as some article reviews

{{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant17|Bgsu98}} with 1547 points, mainly from good articles, featured articles, featured lists, and a good topic about figure skating, along with 20 article reviews

{{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant17|Reconrabbit}} with 1004 points, mainly from a high-multiplier featured article on European rabbit ↗ and several good articles, DYKs, and reviews

{{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant17|A.Cython}} with 1004 points, mainly from good articles about warfare, along with 22 article reviews

{{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant17|Generalissima}} with 859 points, mainly from good and featured articles about rivers and East Asian topics

The full scores for round 3 can be seen here ↗. During this round, contestants have claimed 12 featured articles, 12 featured lists, 7 featured-topic articles, 117 good articles, 74 good-topic articles and more than 30 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 13 In the News ↗ articles, and they have conducted nearly 180 reviews. The tournament points table ↗ has been updated.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed in Round 4. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed ↗. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup ↗, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send ↗. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2026 (UTC)