Your nomination of I Don't Love You is under review

Your good article nomination of the article I Don't Love You 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 RedShellMomentum -- RedShellMomentum (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Minecraft game logo 2023.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Minecraft game logo 2023.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Based5290 :3 (talk) 10:58, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of I Don't Love You has passed

Your good article nomination of the article I Don't Love You 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 RedShellMomentum -- RedShellMomentum (talk) 21:03, 27 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 Everyone who competed in round 2 will advance to round 3 unless they have withdrawn or been banned.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:

• MCE89 (submissions) with 1,333 points, mainly from good and featured articles about Australian people and geography
• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,169 points, mainly from good and featured articles related to shipping ethics controversy in fanfiction, waterways, and Gu Yanwu
• Bgsu98 (submissions) 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
• Olliefant (submissions) 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
• Gommeh (submissions) 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)

Cache the map

From my perspective, 10 citations are enough. I think it passed GNG. Considered it was my first edit here and I joined wikipedia much earlier to than you, I might be right, and I would like to revert back my article. AIeydwerai (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

The sources in the article did not demonstrate significant coverage or critical commentary dedicated to the map itself to establish notability. And, when the Counter-Strike map list exists, you'd also have to establish why the article warrants a split-out from there. The number of citations isn't relevant, but rather what those citations have. When you joined the site is even less relevant. If you would like, I can take the article to AfD instead. λ NegativeMP1 19:42, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

«Poorly sourced and irrelevant to the current Counter-Strike 2»

I don't really understand what "poorly sourced" means if these are literally primary sources. Do you need more sources or what?

And why is this information "irrelevant to the current Counter-Strike 2"? How the hell do you decide what's relevant and what's irrelevant for CS2 page? Team Fortress 2 page describes its early version called Brotherhood of Arms, even though it looks nowhere near the final version. This is the development history of Counter-Strike 2, you can't just call it irrelevant.

I want detailed explanations, not two sentences scribbled on a phone.

D1W3N510N (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Point blank, the CS2 from then is not related to the current CS2 at all. At least, that's not what the "sources" provided establish. They establish a scrapped project that had the same name. But beyond that, they are completely unrelated. What makes it irrelevant isn't the fact they look different, it's the fact they are completely separate things, unless you have reliable sources that directly connect these two. And to that, you're gonna have to have some strong sourcing to argue that something developed 20~ years apart is somehow the same project, when there is no connection beyond the name.

Sourcing wise, well, working off of the previous paragraph, your sources aren't reliable. Primary sources, yes. But there are limits to using primary sources. Every addition you made was based on primary sourcing, which WP:PRIMARY prohibits. It's not even interviews from reliable sources, just blogs and forums. Do you have reliable sources that discuss the "original version" of CS2? No? Then it isn't relevant for inclusion in the first place, let alone qualifying for what I said earlier of the idea they're the same project.

Also going to courtesy ping @IDKFA-93:, the page's primary maintainer and author at this point, for his opinion. λ NegativeMP1 22:53, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Life on the Murder Scene is under review

Your good article nomination of the article Life on the Murder Scene 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 Camilasdandelions -- Camilasdandelions (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Life on the Murder Scene has passed

Your good article nomination of the article Life on the Murder Scene 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 Camilasdandelions -- Camilasdandelions (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

revert of my edit on "Heroes" (David Bowie song)

I added information on David Bowie's 1977 song "'Heroes'" that his and Brian Eno's names were added to Alessio's and Tove Lo's 2014 song "Heroes (We Could Be)"'s writing credits in July 2015, because I think that's useful information. PK2 (talk; contributions) 05:55, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I disagree that it's useful. The section is for information about the composition of the song, not a place for trivia about how Bowie is credited as a songwriter on an, as far as we should be considered, completely unrelated song. λ NegativeMP1 07:09, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree it absolutely does not belong in the composition section. You could possibly make an argument for the "cover versions and tributes" section, but even then the credit was added as a gesture and not through any musical connection, so it doesn't strike me as particularly useful to that specific article. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:40, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Big Boss MGS4 Screenshot.png

Thanks for uploading File:Big Boss MGS4 Screenshot.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Baldi's Basics article

Hi! (again), sorry for disturbing you. I need to discuss the permission of using a semi-protection lock for the Baldi's Basics article so it will not be vandalised by the subsequent unregistered users when preparing it for GA nomination. If you want to talk about it, I have no problems with it.

Thanks! SI Moon Grubisz440 (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Uhhh, I'm a bit confused here. I can't protect pages; that's the job of an administrator. λ NegativeMP1 00:49, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

ok. SI Moon Grubisz440 (talk) 07:10, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

June 2026 GAN Backlog Drive

Good article nominations | June 2026 Backlog Drive
June 2026 Backlog Drive: Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process? On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed. Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points! Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

What MCR songs are most notable that don't already have one?

Hey, I was thinking of making another MCR article, so I wanna ask you what you this is most notable MCR song that doesn't already have one if there is one? Newtatoryd222 (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm like 99% sure at this point that there are no notable songs left that don't already have articles. I've gone through practically everything. If I think something has potential I'll let you know but I think right now the coverage of the band's music in terms of what can or cannot sustain an article is, for lack of a better word, "complete". λ NegativeMP1 23:24, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

At FAC

Hello! I just wanted to let you know that I've gone about nominating Alone (The Cure song) for FA status, now that I have a bit more free time on my hands (nomination page). This is my first nomination at FA, and I would really appreciate your input and/or your possible support :) So far, I've received a media and source review, as well as one prose review. Of course, don't feel obligated if you're too busy or just not in the mood; I just thought I'd bring this to your attention. Leafy46 (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@Leafy46: It's been on my list to review since it came up, but I've had a bit of a stacked schedule lately and haven't started a review until I know I can commit to it. λ NegativeMP1 00:10, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

You're all good. Thank you for keeping it on your mind :) Leafy46 (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Left a placeholder on the review page. I'll try to get to it in the next few days. You obviously don't have to but I'd appreciate if after this you also reviewed "Demolition Lovers" when I get the motivation to nominate it for FA. That'll be a bit though. I'm burnt out, demotivated, and busy... struggling to even get myself to finish "Thank You for the Venom" (which would be the last song rewrite before, in theory, every MCR song article is GA or higher).

P.S., have you thought any more about what MCR songs you think may have FA potential? λ NegativeMP1 23:49, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry that I completely missed this! I'd be delighted to help out with Demolition Lovers once you send it out for FA, though I totally feel you wrt the burnout and everything lol...

I'm also taking a break from MCR songs, but I feel like "Prison" could actually stand a good chance as is for FA, if not for the fact it's a bit short. I actually think that "Na Na Na" could be a good contender too, since there is quite a lot on it (though I would probably need to give the whole article a copyedit to clean it up). I'm a little wary about some of the other big singles (WttBP, Famous Last Words, Teenagers, I'm Not Okay, etc.) because I'm not too confident in my ability to work on articles so important to the MCR canon if you will, but I would be down to rework them once I have a few FAs under my belt and I'm more confident in my ability to write prose up to scuff. Thanks again for everything :) Leafy46 (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Meh, I feel you. I'm being avoidant of the bigger singles because I don't know how to really go about them. "Foundations" was at least really easy. But, I don't even want to try FA'ing any of the Black Parade or Revenge singles right now. I do think "Prison" and "Na Na Na" have pretty good chances though. I could probably make a list of what songs I think have FA chances.

P.S. do you have Discord by any chance? I think if we were ever to coordinate FAs or anything else in the future it'd probably be more a convenient communication method. λ NegativeMP1 18:45, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I do have Discord! I think I've heard of the Wikipedia one, but never quite figured out how/where to join it? Leafy46 (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

The invite link is just at WP:DISCORD. From there it should be pretty easy to find my profile. λ NegativeMP1 20:53, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Bulletproof Heart notability

Hey there! I wanted to ask you, do you think Bulletproof Heart is still notable enough to have its own article? I'm asking this because I found some sources here and here (and also found a NME article briefly mentioning the song's cut music video here if that helps) but I don't know if the first two sources are reliable. I don't have Not the Life It Seems so I cannot check to see if it is mentioned in that. Of course you don't have to go salvaging for sources, I just wanted to see your opinion on where its at notability wise as I have seen it been discussed in the past. Gavetheman555 (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't really know. I remember trying to figure out if it was notable or not a while ago and asking Leafy what he thought... I really don't know. I think it's down to "can a reasonably detailed article be made on it". You can definitely take a shot at it. λ NegativeMP1 20:34, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I want to point out that both Music-News and PopCrush are unreliable per WP:A/S, so they wouldn't be able to contribute much towards a potential article for "Bulletproof Heart". Leafy46 (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I've gone and created a page about it in the mainspace here, I've assessed it so it passes WP:GNG and most likely WP:SIGCOV just fine. Gavetheman555 (talk) 22:45, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the edit on the Call of Duty 4 page; you formatted it well, which I struggled with. By the way, I'm really interested in this thread about Cod 4 if it had come out back then and been available on PS2 and Xbox. I think it would have been similar to Cod 3 (2006), with our character having bare hands (meaning no gloves)and a blow with a butt attack. What do you think? Petukh6786 (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Bobby Prince

On 21 June 2026, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Bobby Prince, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 17:36, 21 June 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:

• MCE89 (submissions) with 1567 points, mainly from good and featured articles about Australian people and geography, as well as some article reviews
• Bgsu98 (submissions) with 1547 points, mainly from good articles, featured articles, featured lists, and a good topic about figure skating, along with 20 article reviews
• Reconrabbit (submissions) with 1004 points, mainly from a high-multiplier featured article on European rabbit and several good articles, DYKs, and reviews
• A.Cython (submissions) with 1004 points, mainly from good articles about warfare, along with 22 article reviews
• Generalissima (submissions) 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)

Requested Assistance for Call of Duty Zombies "Reception and Community" Section

Hi NegativeMP1

As you are aware I am trying to improve the article for Call of Duty Zombies. As there was more detail required for the "Reception and Community" section, I have begun writing a large draft in my sandbox for it, where I would say I have written about 75% of what I believe should be included. At the moment it is about five paragraphs.

I was wondering if you, as a more experienced editor and also someone who wrote the majority of the existing article, would want to take a look before I add it to the main article (probably wouldn't be for over a week anyway). I just thought it would be useful as I am sure there are bits that could be improved upon that you could assist with, whereas I am still fairly new to this.

Of course, no problem if not. I can also see you are taking a semi-break, so I completely understand if you don't want to, just thought i'd ask.

Thanks, Seb. Szeiu (talk) 09:28, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I do think it's an improvement over what's there right now, but there are some problems I notice. You've got some generally high-quality sources overall, but I would axe pretty much anything in the section that's owned by WP:VALNET (so DualShockers, etc.), though they probably need to go from the rest of the article as a whole. Speedrun.com isn't reliable, nor would ZWR (both are WP:UGC), and I have no idea what XDA, TryRolling and DarkZero are, so I'd cut them out to be safe. A bit of the writing also seems a little WP:SYNTH-y, where it's trying to draw certain conclusions based on a few reviewer opinions ("Overall, retrospective reviewers praised the simplicity of the iteration and credited its importance for introducing the Zombies mode", for one). I also don't think individual opinions on the Zombie maps themselves (outside of launch stuff like TranZit) or tier lists are needed as they're more superfluous in comparison to full-feature reviews.

But, overall, I do think it is an improvement, and I can continue giving feedback as you go along if you'd like. Maybe I can work on it some myself later on when I'm motivated. λ NegativeMP1 15:52, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I will definitely take action on that feedback, that is very helpful to me. Further feedback would also be great, i'll let you know when I have made some more progress with it. In the meantime, feel free to keep an eye on it in my sandbox and if you do find the motivation feel welcome to edit it also (i'm assuming you can?). Szeiu (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay so I have taken some action on some of the feedback you have shared, as well as finally finishing up with all the Black Ops games included. I have not yet included a paragraph on non-Treyarch games (infinite/advanced warfare, WW2, etc) which I will do soon. I am struggling at the moment though, so was wondering what you thought of the format. I have individually paragraphed the Black Ops 1-4, but I am not sure it reads smoothly, and it feels quite repetitive.

The other issue is finding sources is incredibly difficult. I did remove any Valnet sources, but kept a few others in that you mentioned may be risky, purely because I cannot find any others to state the given information. I believe Rolling Stone is a well-known magazine, so I did keep that in. I was wondering if there was anyway to include anything from Youtube. I know this usually is against Wikipedia policy; but there is much on Youtube from people such as Jason Blundell, and also other established "Youtubers" who I have in-fact mentioned in the community section. I know these likely shouldn't be used as much as critic reviews, but anything that could even be used once or twice would be useful, so I was just wondering your thoughts on that, and any other advice you wish to offer on the article as a whole.

Once again, if you have the time/motivation (and are able to on my sandbox) feel free to edit things yourself at any point. Szeiu (talk) 09:47, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Finding sources for things is rough, but the need for quality sourcing is a Wikipedia policy. I couldn't count on just my fingers how many times I've wanted to put something in an article that I felt was important but couldn't because of lack of sourcing. If the source backing up a statement is shaky, then it's better to be safe than sorry. Though do keep in mind sourcing doesn't have to be from exclusively gaming outlets; stuff like Rolling Stone for example is fine.

YouTubers, for just about anything, are kind-of hard to justify mention in an article. If high-quality sources mention them as like the faces of the community, then I wouldn't really see a problem. Overall though, reception still seems fine so far. λ NegativeMP1 20:03, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi. I have now uploaded my draft up onto the live page for Call of Duty Zombies. Thank you for your help in making this draft, your feedback was very useful. I understand there are still areas for improvement, but I think it is a strong start and hopefully a few editors like yourself can take it and polish it up where needed. Thanks again. Szeiu (talk) 08:57, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Bob Bryar is under review

Your good article nomination of the article Bob Bryar 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 RTSthestardust -- RTSthestardust (talk) 01:22, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Bob Bryar has passed

Your good article nomination of the article Bob Bryar 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 RTSthestardust -- RTSthestardust (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi there! Just wanted to send a quick thank you for getting a few MCR-related articles I created to GA and even Featured! I’m incredibly impressed and grateful for your contributions. :) Sekyaw (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Articles for Creation backlog drive

Hello NegativeMP1:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in August!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than a month of outstanding reviews from the current 3+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 August 2026 through 31 August 2026.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 5000 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

Your nomination of The View (song) is under review

Your good article nomination of the article The View (song) 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 Gavetheman555 -- Gavetheman555 (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of The View (song) has passed

Your good article nomination of the article The View (song) 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 Gavetheman555 -- Gavetheman555 (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

GrapheneOS and Roblox

Wikipedia considers GrapheneOS to be a separate operating system from Android, even if it's considered part of the same AOSP family and can run basically all Android software.

The source I linked is otherwise a direct link to a Roblox Help page that explicitly lists GrapheneOS as an example of a supported platform. Wikipedia just has it on a spam filter. Zenphia1 (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I get where you're coming from, but it still feels silly. While this wouldn't be a specific application of it, MOS:VG has sorts of advice about how to go about this. Mainly "Similarly for operating systems, use the broad category of operating system and not specific versions of releases. A game that requires the operating features of Windows 10 should still only be given in the platform list as "Windows". Use "Unix" or "Linux" to cover the broad classes of various Unix/Linux distribution releases". There is also "Avoid listing hardware-specific aspects in the platforms. Do not use "Ouya" or "Nvidia Shield TV" but instead "Android", though exclusivity to these devices can be mentioned in the body", which while not fully applicable, still supports the idea that it should still just be kept to simply Android. λ NegativeMP1 00:21, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Edit reverted due to being "uneccessary"

I get it, the article Minecraft may not "need" further elaboration on how players may cooperate or compete in the perspective of someone who has played Minecraft before. My concern is that someone new might think you can only help others by building, or that modifications cannot be so transformative. In the way the article currently phrases it, it sounds like modifications only add new items or mobs for example. When I single out a popular minigame new players might not know of, they then know modifications can be so powerful it transforms the game into something completely new. Tell me how this is not beneficial. User222888 (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't know how you got the conclusion that the lead implies it when it says "cooperate with or compete against other players in multiplayer" in the same sentence of mentioning building and combat. Anyways, no, singling out a specific minigame is not necessary, and your addition was clunky nonetheless. Also, Bedwars and minigames are not mentioned in the Minecraft article, making your addition unsourced and/or not verified in the article body. λ NegativeMP1 17:22, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Did you even read my point or scan through it? I said that new players may only know of Minecraft as a game where you build in an earthlike environment and not be aware of minigames like Bedwars that are a completely new way of playing the game. Yes, the article mentions multiplayer, servers, and even modifications but my point is that those who are new to the game may not know about community made content beyond new items and mobs. You mentioned how I did not provide a citation for where I got Bedwars from, but it is extremely well known making it common knowledge. User222888 (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I did read your point. I simply disagree with it. I don't know how you're getting the conclusion you have.

"my point is that those who are new to the game may not know about community made content beyond new items and mobs" I think you're picturing the average reader as not fully going through the lead because the literal next sentence says: "in addition, the game's large community offers a wide variety of user-generated content, such as modifications, servers, player skins, texture packs, and custom maps, which add new game mechanics and possibilities". That's not too specific, sure, but it's certainly more than "new items and mobs".

"{[xt|You mentioned how I did not provide a citation for where I got Bedwars from, but it is extremely well known making it common knowledge}}" yeah, no, a Minecraft minigame is not "common knowledge", and there still would need to be a justification for why it is singled out in the lead. And a source allowing for its mention in the article. It's not due, and also fails WP:V. λ NegativeMP1 23:19, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Why are you making such a fuss only because you believe my addition is "unnecessary"? Wikipedia is meant to be an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Your argument that you reverting my small contribution is justified only because its "unnecessary" defeats the whole purpose of Wikipedia's existence. Plus, what do you mean by I am "singling out" Bedwars? I am only using it as an example. Are we not allowed to use examples anymore? User222888 (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Bold, revert, discuss is a very common process. You boldly edited, I reverted, and now we're discussing. We are doing exactly what we are supposed to and it doesn't "defeats the whole purpose of Wikipedia's existence".

"Plus, what do you mean by I am "singling out" Bedwars? I am only using it as an example. Are we not allowed to use examples anymore?" the thing is, that "example" isn't necessary. So it does come off as singling out Bedwars. λ NegativeMP1 01:33, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

You are making no sense at this point. How am I "boldly" editing? I am simply using the site as intended if edits were meant to always be reverted there is no reason for the feature to exist. You mentioned that the example is not exactly "necessary" but then why is it "necessary" for it to not exist? You are literally just saying more examples somehow lessen the quality of the article. Make sense of yourself. User222888 (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Please carefully read through Wikipedia's guidelines before taking action against other users. Explain how you are still in the right after reading this article. Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary User222888 (talk) 03:01, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't know why you're taking offense to the fact I said you boldly made an edit. You made an edit to an article thinking it would be improved by your edit. That is the definition of being bold. And that's not a bad thing?

"Explain how you are still in the right after reading this article. Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary". Okay, reading it again (I've read it before), I don't think anything changes. I think your edit made the article worse and I've already explained that. You added unnecessary, clunky extra details using an unsourced example that, as I said, was not needed to begin with. Also don't tell me to "read carefully through Wikipedia's guidelines" when you just violated WP:V or MOS:LEAD (FYI only revert when necessary is an essay, not a guideline).

"You are literally just saying more examples somehow lessen the quality of the article. Make sense of yourself." Firstly, that's not what I said. Examples are fine. Unsourced ones and ones where they are not needed are not fine. Your reason for adding the example is because you thought readers will automatically assume that you can only add custom mobs and items to Minecraft, something which the lead makes clear is not the case to begin with. Therefore, going off of your own reasoning, it is unnecessary. You also repeated information that was already in the article ("cooperate with or compete against other players in multiplayer" already explains the core part of "they may share resources in Minecraft's survival mode, or fight in PvP minigames such as Bedwars" but better). λ NegativeMP1 03:41, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

You told me multiple times that you think my addition is "unnecessary" not "worsening the article" and have told me its "unnecessary" again in your last paragraph. It is also funny you are only telling me you think it is actually making the article worse now after I brought up Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. I could be wrong, but something is telling me you reverted my addition for the sole reason of it being "unnecessary" and have not read Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. Yes, I am not going to ignore the fact you have corrected me that it is an essay and not a guideline. I appreciate you for that.

Now, you have told me multiple times that I did not provide a citation for "Bedwars". Go search up "Bedwars" and you will see that there is not a source that explicitly says, "There are lots of Minecraft minigames, and 'Bedwars' is one of them." It is like saying, "Russia is the largest country on earth" and then being asked to provide the source you got it from. You did not read from somewhere to get the conclusion that Russia is the largest country on earth you just know it. User222888 (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

If I say an edit is "unnecessary", then I have deeper reasoning for why it is unnecessary that can then be used to explain why I think it made the article worse. In principle something that is truly "unnecessary" is making the article worse. But I did only explain it directly in terms of "making the article worse" because of your insistence regarding that essay. Does that really change anything though?

Your comparison of a Minecraft minigame being of similar common knowledge to a country is ridiculous at best. Not only is it entirely plausible someone doesn't know Russia is the biggest country off the top of their head, but that wouldn't matter anyways because Wikipedia still has policies that require verification and says anything that fails verification can be removed. I did that. I'd argue it's even against MOS:VG (which instructs to write something with a casual reader that is unaware of the game in mind) to assume readers somehow already know of a minigame. Also the fact Russia is the largest country is sourced in the article for Russia and List of countries and dependencies by area (or at least attributed), so I'm not sure what your point is. λ NegativeMP1 15:29, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

So let me just summarize to try and be more clear. Your edit:

• Introduced an unsourced example, failing WP:V.
• Said example is also not mentioned in the rest of the article, failing MOS:LEAD.
• Repeated information that was already in the lead in a more concise, proper way.

These are the three main reasons why I reverted your edit. I will admit my initial edit summary only touched on two, but these are the main three reasons why. And, now that I'm double checking what my edit summary was, I didn't just use the word "unnecessary" and call it a day. Which you're arguing I did, based on you citing that essay. λ NegativeMP1 15:35, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, is your main problem the fact that I made the addition very early in the article other than the fact it is unsourced? The intention was to build on top of the previous statement; not to introduce a complete new idea. My main concern was that "compete against other players in multiplayer" is very broad. It could be interpreted as only racing against them, fighting against each other in only a regular world, taking resources before them and more. When I give an example of what "compete" can mean such as a minigame, in my opinion, they can get an idea that Minecraft is much more than just a simulated world. Again, I simply cannot find a good source to use as a citation for "Bedwars" if you can find a good source or if you think it would be better to remove it entirely and just say "they can fight in PvP minigames" I would happily do so. User222888 (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I feel like the statement being broad here is a good thing because all of those things you mentioned are possible; Minecraft is a game of almost endless possibilities. The lead should be kept short and simple and I think that "cooperate with or compete against other players in multiplayer" does enough. There's also the next sentence "In addition, the game's large community offers a wide variety of user-generated content, such as modifications, servers, player skins, texture packs, and custom maps, which add new game mechanics and possibilities", which helps go into detail about how much the game can be changed and how players engage with it. It's made clear to the reader already that there are many, almost infinite, ways that players can cooperate or compete against each other. So I think the broadness here is fine and an example isn't really needed. There's also the WP:DUE concern of listing minigames as a sole example. λ NegativeMP1 21:43, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

You are once again saying its unnecessary when we already established that is not a valid reason to revert an edit out of good faith. Now you are just throwing random accusations, how am I not speaking from a neutral standpoint? I did not say "minigames are the best way to fight in Minecraft" or something else that could be considered biased. You already said using examples are good so is your issue that I am using it as a sole example? If so I can absolutely use more if you think that is better. Also reading your response again I find it strange how you are telling me that I am possibly violating WP:DUE when your last response is entirely based on your opinion. User222888 (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of anything. I said that the article having examples (even if it was more than one) could potentially be seen as undue (I called it a possible concern). Not that you are violating DUE. I never said you were, nor did I ever say you were speaking non-neutrally. I think the one making random accusations is you.

"You are once again saying its unnecessary when we already established that is not a valid reason to revert an edit out of good faith" so now you're just discarding the whole argument I'm making as to why I disagreed with and reverted the change because in the end it can be summarized as "unnecessary". I gave you reasons. And sure, everything I said is my opinion. Everything you've said is your opinion. But my reasoning at least cites policy.

" You already said using examples are good so is your issue that I am using it as a sole example?" I said that in response to you rhetorically arguing that examples weren't allowed on Wikipedia. I think I've already made it clear I don't think they're appropriate in this case; not that they're inappropriate on Wikipedia in general because that's obviously not true. λ NegativeMP1 23:37, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I will admit I made a mistake saying you accused me as you said it was just "potentially". I apologize. Now then, thanks as now you have proven my point of the whole reason of you reverting my edit is not right. You explicitly said that you only personally disagree with the edit; not that it is actually wrong according to Wikipedia. That is not a reason to revert it.

What do you mean by you think examples were not "appropriate" in this case? How can examples be "inappropriate"? Why are you claiming I argued examples are not allowed on Wikipedia? I believe that to be absurd and firmly believe in them. That is an opinion; you believing examples are not appropriate in certain cases is also an opinion. User222888 (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Two out of my three reasons to revert it did, in-fact, cite a Wikipedia policy. So yes, my reversion had basis in policy. "And sure, everything I said is my opinion. Everything you've said is your opinion. But my reasoning at least cites policy". And I've cited many other policies outside of just those two. How many times do we need to go in circles here?

"Why are you claiming I argued examples are not allowed on Wikipedia?" I didn't exactly say you argued they weren't allowed. I said that you said that as a rhetorical statement. Which you did with "Are we not allowed to use examples anymore?". λ NegativeMP1 05:58, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I am sure I had a counter argument for many of them. Explain them to me one more time so we can stop going in circles and agree to a conclusion. Sure I used it as a rhetorical statement fair enough. It is a little weird though that you ignored my question for what cases is an example inappropriate. It is almost like you could not come up with a logical answer. User222888 (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I didn't answer it because I already did answer it. This is an inappropriate case for examples.

My reasons are already here at this comment. I do not need to, nor want to, explain them again. Two of those reasons outright are policy-based reasons for reversion. I think if there's something here I could recommend to make the lead more clear (which I still don't think is necessary) then it would be something like "such as in combat" added to the sentence about cooperating or competing against other plays. But I think even that could be clunky, and while still an example, would be better than using specific minigames only certain servers have. λ NegativeMP1 20:17, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Alright then, I will propose a solution that we can both hopefully agree on. To solve the unsourced example, I will remove the example of Bedwars. Your second issue is also solved by the removal of the mention of Bedwars. Lastly, I apparently repeated information from the previous statement. Let's take a look at the previous statement, "They can discover and extract raw materials, craft tools and items, build structures, fight hostile mobs, and cooperate with or compete against other players in multiplayer." Now at mine, "They may share resources in survival mode, or fight in PvP minigames such as Bedwars." I still do not get how I am repeating it and not elaborating on it. I still have no interest on not restoring it just because it is "unnecessary". So the revised version is now, "They may share resources in survival mode, fight in PvP minigames, and more." I still stand by the reason for my addition is so readers can have an idea modifications can transform the game into something completely different. User222888 (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

"I still have no interest on not restoring it just because it is 'unnecessary'" Enough. That's all I'll say and it'll be the last thing I say in that regard.

Mentioning mini games would still not be an improvement because the Minecraft article has no mentions of mini games (although it probably should because of console edition). At best, I think PvP could be mentioned in the lead and that's it. λ NegativeMP1 21:58, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Interesting you say that, do you think it would be a true improvement if minigames were introduced somewhere later in the article? User222888 (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I do think the legacy console ones should be mentioned somewhere in the article and I think it's a glaring omission that the page just doesn't touch on them. Separate debate, I know, but it is one of the gripes I've had with the Minecraft article for a while. Legacy Console, at a point, made up the majority of Minecraft's early playerbase, which transitioned over to Bedrock being more popular than Java. Yet the page just... doesn't discuss these significant multiplayer modes that all console players from like 2015 to 2017 or something had.

Not sure if I'd mention minigames in the lead still though, considering modern server minigames and the console minigames are two different beasts. λ NegativeMP1 23:24, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

After digging deeper into the article I realized that in the multiplayer section under gameplay it already takes care of my concern. Nice chat though have a good rest of your day. User222888 (talk) 00:28, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Good article nominations RfC

Hi NegativeMP1,

There is an ongoing Request for Comment (RfC) at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/August 2026 RfC, which you may be interested in because in the past year, you have nominated or reviewed more than one good article nomination. This message has also been sent to all subscribers to the Good Article Gazette. The RfC contains many proposals (33 at the time of writing), which are split into the following categories: nominators, reviewers, reviews, volunteer roles, reviewing initiatives, and others. However, you are more than welcome to add any proposals of your own that you wish to put to the community.

By the end of September, all the proposals will have been closed by an uninvolved editor, either as a consensus for one of the options or with no consensus. At this point, editors will be invited again to develop these proposals into coherent policy and implement them.

Thank you for your contributions to the good articles project, and I look forward to your input! (in solidarity), JacobTheRox^{(talk|contributions)} 16:03, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Electronic/Dance Music Concept Albums

Hello,

I have seen your revision on the "Concept album" page, and I would like to discuss the decision further. I understand the concern that some of my additions may have included excessive detail, and I would be completely open to reducing or condensing those sections. However, I do not think removing dance and electronic concept albums almost entirely from the history is the appropriate solution.

Dance and electronic albums are an important part of album culture, particularly from the disco era onward, yet the history presented on this page remains very heavily centered on rock. This is why I originally expanded the section on Donna Summer and her producers Giorgio Moroder and Pete Bellotte. Disco concept albums were already mentioned on the page before my revisions, but the artists who were among the earliest to develop album-length concepts within disco were largely absent. Summer's Four Seasons of Love, I Remember Yesterday, and Once Upon a Time are especially relevant here because they demonstrate how thematic and narrative album structures were being applied to disco during the 1970s. My intention was not simply to add more information about Donna Summer, but to address a gap in the existing history of the format.

The same reasoning applies to the additions of Kraftwerk, Madonna, Daft Punk, and Beyoncé. These examples demonstrate different ways that album-level concepts continued within electronic and dance music: through recurring themes, continuous sequencing, narrative, multimedia presentation, and the treatment of the album as a unified work. The page itself defines conceptual unity as something that can be instrumental, compositional, narrative, or lyrical, so I think it is important that the history actually represents those different approaches rather than disproportionately representing the narrative traditions associated with rock.

I also think there is an important distinction between arguing that my additions were too detailed and arguing that these developments are not historically relevant. If the concern is length or undue weight, I am completely open to substantially reducing the sections. The Erotica and American Life paragraphs, for example, could certainly be condensed while preserving their relevance to the development of concept albums in dance and electronic music. I would rather work toward a shorter version that establishes why these albums matter than insist that all of the material I added remain exactly as written.

What I disagree with is removing this history altogether. Dance, disco, and electronic music have repeatedly used the album as a cohesive artistic format, and leaving those developments out produces an incomplete account of concept-album history. These genres are already frequently left out of discussions of the concept album in favor of rock and progressive rock. Reproducing that imbalance here does not make the history more concise; it leaves an important part of album culture and the development of the concept album underrepresented.

Best,

Carlos RunawayLoverMP3 (talk) 04:53, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

For the record, I reverted what I felt was too many examples (I meant to type in "excessive usage of examples" rather than "excessive usage of details"; I'm not sure how I messed up my edit summary). I feel as if the section became too long and like random examples of concept albums of these genres were thrown in without much flow. I feel like the one without all of these examples reads a lot better and more coherent than the one with all of these new examples. The page is about an overview and history of the concept album, not a List of concept albums. I obviously would have no objection to those genres being represented on the concept album page. Instead, I objected to example overkill.

Do you have any sources that discuss the history of electronic/dance albums as a whole? Or discussions of these genres in sources about the history of the concept album? You could prioritize examples of albums that are included in these sources, rather than throwing in random examples. λ NegativeMP1 05:03, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying what you meant by the edit summary. I understand your objection much better now. I am going to rewrite those sections with that in mind and focus much more on broader historical developments in dance and electronic album culture rather than trying to represent that history through a succession of individual albums.

I have also been looking specifically for the kind of sources you suggested—scholarly histories of disco and electronic music, rather than reviews of individual albums—and I have found sources that I think provide a much better basis for doing this. For example, academic sources discuss the development of the continuous disco LP and DJ-style sequencing, Donna Summer/Giorgio Moroder/Pete Bellotte's use of album-length concepts, Moroder's continuous electronic albums, and Kraftwerk's concept albums as part of the broader history of electronic music.

I would, however, like to retain the brief section introducing Donna Summer, Giorgio Moroder, and Pete Bellotte. I don't think their inclusion presents the same problem of excessive examples. Disco concept albums were already discussed in the article before my edits, but there was very little historical context explaining the development of the concept album within disco. Summer, Moroder, and Bellotte are directly relevant to filling that gap. There is also scholarship supporting this: Alex Jeffery's Bloomsbury Academic book on Once Upon a Time discusses Four Seasons of Love as arguably the first proper disco concept album, while scholarship in the Journal of Popular Music Studies discusses I Remember Yesterday specifically as a concept album organized around different periods of popular-music history. My intention with that paragraph is therefore not to list Donna Summer albums, but to briefly explain an early development in the history of the disco concept album that was previously missing from the article.

I would also like to retain Erotica, although I agree that the paragraph I originally added is too long and can be condensed considerably. I think Erotica has a particular reason to appear in the "Decline and return to popularity" section beyond simply being another example of a concept album. The section currently establishes that concept albums became less dominant during the 1980s and then discusses their continuation and eventual resurgence. Erotica provides a notable dance-music example from 1992 within that transitional period. Retrospective sources explicitly describe it as a concept album about sex and love, while contemporary coverage demonstrates that the album extended beyond sexuality alone into relationships, prejudice, AIDS and death. Its concept was also connected to the simultaneously released Sex book, making it an example of an album-length concept extending into a larger multimedia project. The enormous controversy surrounding that project also frequently overshadowed discussion of the album itself, which makes its place within a period characterized as a decline in album-oriented culture particularly interesting.

I don't think all of the examples I originally added need to remain. In particular, I am willing to substantially reduce the number of later Madonna, Daft Punk, and Beyoncé examples and prioritize albums that broader histories of the concept album or electronic/dance music themselves identify. My main concern is preserving a concise historical account of how the concept album developed within disco and electronic/dance music rather than returning to a history in which those developments are largely absent. I think that would address the problem you identified without turning the history section into a list of concept albums. RunawayLoverMP3 (talk) 05:50, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Just wanted to let you know that I have made revisions to the page. I removed the album examples that felt random and disconnected to the history of the concept album, while emphasizing albums that historically did have impact on the concept album (particularly the disco section). I also left Erotica as an example as it serves as a transitionary album between the MTV era of music to the 2000s resurgence of the concept album (I also just felt like having an example from one of the biggest woman in music during the 90s wouldn't hurt given the fact that in the following paragraphs, examples are included for simply being successful). I hope ths can be a middle ground between the lack of representation of non-rock albums vs too many examples of non-rock albums. If there is anything you feel I can fix, please let me know and I am willing to discuss it further. Thank you. RunawayLoverMP3 (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I think how it looks now is a major improvement and flows much better in comparison to the original revision I reverted. Don't know if further revision should be needed at first glance. Thank you. λ NegativeMP1 16:50, 16 August 2026 (UTC)