# Talk:End Poem

Given that Wikipedia is about highlighting real world events, should it not reject this PR stunt? For should a poem, aimed at advertising a product, be allowed?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.239 (talk) 05:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The End Poem exists apart from its use in Minecraft and is discussed in the article as a piece of literature. I don't think this article is a PR stunt, but needless to say, Wikipedia is about more than highlighting real world events. 〜 Askarion ✉ 20:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The page currently describes the End Poem as a poem. I'm not sure that this is correct; it seems like a prose dialogue to me. Dingolover6969 (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The redirect And the universe said I love you because you are love has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 17 § And the universe said I love you because you are love until a consensus is reached.  DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@BarntToust: I'm really grateful for all the improvements you've made to the article. I'm wondering, do you think the article's ready for WP:GAN? The prose is good, the sourcing is good, and we discuss the topic in a pretty holistic way, including reception and analysis.  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 00:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tamzin, I absolutely think so! You can get a co-nomination going as soon as you'd like. Thank you for starting out this article. Have a good one! BarntToust 00:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
@BarntToust: Are you done with your expansion? Because whenever you're done I'll do another pass for copy-editing, ref tweaks, and probably a little lede reworking, and then conominate. (BTW, lots of replag right now, so if any of your edits seem to not go through here or on the article, wait like 30 seconds.)  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 00:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
@Tamzin, I believe I'm done with my expansions. I probably will check over and do passes of copyediting as well, whenever I get a chance. BarntToust 00:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
ah, a source from RTÉ, an Irish public broadcaster. Now's all done. BarntToust 00:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
@BarntToust: I've pared back some of what you added to the lede as a bit over-detailed, but I think kept the overall thrust of it. I also added some more about reception and analysis. Does it look good to you? WP:Bold-refine welcome.  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 01:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
@Tamzin currently in the body, there is no content that says that Gough considered Microsoft's continued use of the poem copyright violation. You have that claim in paragraph 3 of the lede. That needs to be somewhere in the body. Preferably in the penultimate paragraph of Ownership and copyright status. BarntToust 01:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
To note, in the same section, paragraph 2 it says that during the buyout of Mojang Gough didn't want to enter a legal dispute. BarntToust 01:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I've primary-cited Gough's claim of DMCA violations, backed up by expert Glyn Moody's concurrence that there was copyright infringement (in-text attributed, since it's an opinion piece, but it establishes that it's not something only Gough thinks). Not sure I follow your second point though? By my reading, the lede, the body, and Gough's essay all agree that Gough generally, persistently, did not want to go to court against Microsoft.  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 01:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
@Tamzin Oh yeah. I was trying to differentiate between Gough not wanting to go to court due to the buyout, versus him believing their continued use was copyright vio. Hope that clears it up. Thanks for getting input by an WP:EXPERTSPS! BarntToust 01:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Speaking of SPS, I've tried to reduce cites to Gough 2022 as much as I can. It now stands at 9, but they're all either Gough talking about something that another source also talks about, or cited to talk about the blog post itself, with the sole exception of the slowed-down scrolling fact. So I'm comfortable defending those 9 cites to a GA reviewer if it comes up.  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 01:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Sounds a-ok by me! I think any concerns about bold claims are taken care of in that regard. I don't expect any concerns by a GA reviewer over that. BarntToust 01:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Besides that, everything looks great to me! BarntToust 01:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Hold on, @Tamzin, the following need archive urls and archive-dates: <ref name="colbert">, the tweet attached to <ref name="corden">, <ref name="mcgrath"> and <ref name="moody">. The empty perameters are all already attached at the end, but need the archives. BarntToust 01:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I can get those tomorrow if you haven't got them by then. BarntToust 01:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

All right, I think everything's good as can be planned for WP:GAN now. Great work, @Tamzin! BarntToust 02:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:End Poem/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominators: Tamzin (talk · contribs) • BarntToust (talk · contribs) 02:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 18:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh this seems like a fun one. Will take this on at some point soon. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey great to see this get picked up this quickly! For many people it's the holidays, and that's an IRL busy time, so there's no rush. BarntToust 00:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
@BarntToust: and @Tamzin:


### Six GA Criteria
1. Article is well-written. Very minimal mistakes if any at all.
2. No OR, all info is cited in the article.
3. Coverage is broad in depth and focus. Shows multiple aspects of the subject.
4. Article appears neutral, and does not appear to hold a significantly negative nor positive stance on the subject.
5. Article appears stable. Does not appear to have had any major vandalism occur.
6. Article uses no fair use images or files. (Impressive)


### Lead
-Looks good


### Creation and use in Minecraft
-Looks good


### Reception
-"calls it "weird" and unlike anything else except maybe the ending of Battlestar Galactica (2004)" Is the Battlestar Galactica bit a quote? I feel it should be reworded if not (Perhaps something like "and unlike anything bar the ending..."


### Ownership and copyright status
-Looks good
Since this is pretty glowing, just going to do the spotcheck now. 
Sources analyzed: 12, 3, 8, 23, 11, 2. 3 is inaccessible by me, but the others look good, so I assume good faith that it verifies its contents. 
Overall, you both did a fantastic job. The comment above is pretty minor and I take assurance that it will be addressed in some capacity, so I'm going to take the pre-emptive measure of passing the article. One minor comment is that if you intend to take this to FA, the CBR source may not be up to snuff there, but outside of that, excellent job, both of you. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey! Happy holidays. I converted the bit about Battlestar Galactica into a quote. Thank you for your time in reviewing this.
I think if we take it to FA in the literature category, we may find CBR less of a problem. I'm aware that WikiProject video games sort of has a hate boner for the publications run by Valnet, as some of their stories are suffering from the whole "churn out more for the content farm" thing. I consider CBR and Collider to be among two of their more helpful publications on more frequent basises, though isn't the entire industry of journalism, period, suffering from the need to churn out leveraging AI? BarntToust 17:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Hol' up, just checked WP:VALNET, CBR is "situational", and the WikiProject video games stipulates that notability should be established by stronger sources. Have plenty of those, so I'd wager a hypothetical FA nom wouldn't really be hurt by the input of a CBR journalist. BarntToust 18:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Figured I'd clarify: Due to Valnet being a weaker end source due to its habits as a content farm, Valnet sources typically aren't considered up to snuff at FAC a lot of the time. For the purposes of a GA I have no issues, but since FA requires stronger sourcing than a GA, Valnet is often not up to snuff, and I figured I'd at least make you aware of that if you plan to take it there. Not to say it can't be used with stipulations; a Screen Rant piece passed in Raichu's FAC recently because it was written by a reputable industry journalist, and sources from more reliable publications like TheGamer tend to be fine to use, but in this case, the source tends to be considered very borderline as a whole, and the piece's author (Creswell), from a Google search, seems to really only have experience at CBR in terms of major journalistic outlets.
Obviously I can't read the minds of hypothetical reviewers, but this is a pretty common trend at FAC reviews from what I've both seen and heard. If you want to use CBR, be prepared with an argument for why you're using it and what it adds, and how its removal may detriment the article, though do be aware if the article is considered to be relying on a lot of "weaker" sourcing, some may be suspect of that. I can't guarantee that'll work, but if you're dead set, I figured I'd at least make you aware of the stipulations that come with the source and some ideas of how to work around them. Best of luck if you do take it up there, since this article is in a pretty solid state as it is.  Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
I'd really have to speak with Tamzin about taking it to FA. Thanks for your words of caution to the whole process. I'd say that the value of the source as it pertains to the insights it gives is the only indication of its worth, though I must admit I'd rather do some more Google Scholar work if more worthy sources appear. If I can replace a magazine or website with a newspaper of record or a scholarly journal, I always like to do so. Thank you for your insights on the processes of the depth of FA reviews. I see the Pokemon FAC got by using several TheGamer sources, which I'm sure were judged by the value of the content within, and not the fact that it's a Valnet website. That gives me less pause about stuff like CBR being used in this case. BarntToust 18:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Best of luck if you do attempt to take it up there!  Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I thought the whole poem would be on this page. That's even the reason why I went here! Herobrinedude56 (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

At the top of the article there is a link to wiki source with the full poem, it is also linked in the article. Knitsey (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Oh Herobrinedude56 (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)