# Talk:Cow (Mario)

While the page is under construction, so I will wait for it to be completed first, I'm more than likely going to AfD this article for failing WP:GNG. While it has quite a bit of WP:REFBOMBing, it's just that. It's not a character who is standalone notable outside of being a character list entry. Besides the complete lack of characterization, the vast majority of sources are VALNET, listicles/trivial mentions, or primary interviews. There was the whole PETA brouhaha, but that's basically giving a massively WP:FRINGE view free advertising. It's undue to mention it for more than, like, one sentence.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:28, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

You're claiming the vast majority of sources are valnet...but only XDA and ScreenRant seem to be. The rest are full articles discussing the thing. There are some lists used, but they seem to be few and far between. There's a valid reaction and examination of player response, design analysis, and controversy. Out of this the one thing I would consider removing is the paragraph about suspected cannibalism (splitting the second paragraph so the player reaction is it's own thing would make up for this for flow), but even then there's SIGCOV provided by the sources and a clear WP:THREE he can draw on, that illustrates why it got the reaction it did beyond that of the game.
This is rather unfounded Zx.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:01, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
I accept I might be wrong about this, so what exactly are the three best sources being used here? In my view they appear to be almost entirely trivial coverage, even if articles. This one, for example, is a full article but only has the equivalent of one paragraph, where it jokes about the cow being a cannibal. But doesn't go much further than making a joke.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:32, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
The Famitsu article I feel is a good one, while the GamesRadar+ and Polygon sources are offering some discussion points. Keep in mind SIGCOV does not necessitate what the *length* of material taken from a source needs to be, as you've seen brought up more than once in AfDs, just an indication that there's something significant to cite. Beyond that, the PETA bit overall helps round the article out. There's also a New York Times article about the fan response. I do recall too there's a sister website to Paste magazine that also had an article, that I don't think is used in here. Cukie may recall that, that site had an article on FF6's cast too.
I'd definitely love for this to be stronger overall, but as it stands I think it's got some meat. The cannibalism paragraph and that bit explaining the fan art was in response to the lack of a switch 2 may be what's throwing you off perhaps? (the fan art from major figures I feel is fine to mention, I think the reason for it isn't helping as much and can be excluded)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
it's got some what now consarn (grave) (obituary) 16:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
EDIT: Found the Paste-related article, it's from Endless Mode.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Zx, I say this as nice as I possibly can, but I find your judgment on the notability (or lack thereof) deeply questionable if you didn't even check to verify whether the claim of Valner being overused was actually true. Why would you say that? Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Definitely noteworthy that it received coverage from the New York Times, that's far from routine VALNET churnalism. While I agree that the PETA content is conceptually silly, it still gets coverage, and what's in the article currently is far from promotional sounding in tone. Sergecross73 msg me 16:34, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Claiming that the PETA discussion shouldn't be in is also a bizarre claim for you to make here; you seem to be saying it's undue from your own personal feelings on the matter, when the only reason it's included is because multiple reliable sources discussed it to a degree warranting the coverage it received. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Note: I never claimed Valnet was overused a single time, so I don't know where that's coming from. I wasn't previously aware of those sources however, and I do believe that it squeaks by notability. (Which is precisely why I asked rather than doing anything drastic). I'm not going to try to go full crusader mode and claim that those sources aren't significant. I simply wanted to ask for clarification, which I got.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:23, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
To be fair, even if unintentional, the whole "the vast majority of sources are VALNET" comes across like you're implying that. I reckon you probably intended an 'either' in there?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Even if that wasn't your intent, by my count, the article has 16 sources I would consider non-trivial, non-VALNET, and non-primary, which is a majority of sources. I would argue that it has a smaller portion of weaker sources than, say, Dracthyr, which I also believe has no article that is comparable to the strongest article currently used in this one. Also, declaring that you intend to AfD an article before seeing it in its finished state should be well understood to be deeply unproductive, and you should take the fact that multiple experienced editors strongly disagree with you. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
As a separate point, I feel concerned that you didn't read WP:FRINGE thoroughly. It is about not granting fringe theories or controversial ideas equal weight to accepted theories and ideas. The nutshell specifically suggests that it's about scholarly matters, not criticism of a video game character. The page itself discusses exclusively science and nothing else. I believe it's inappropriate to use it in this way, as it seems like you're trying to make your argument seem stronger by implying that you have policies and guidelines to back up your position. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

"In a video by PinkNews, they speculated that the Cow could be transgender due to the fact the cow had both male (horns) and female (udders and a nose ring) anatomy".
There are several issues here. First and foremost, it was not PinkNews, the video starts with "Gamers think", so PinkNews is reporting what other people say rather than speculating on it. Then the sentence asserts a fact the video also didn't mention, that the cow had male horns. No, the video says: "as well as horns, which are more commonly seen on bulls", because many cows do have horns (and even the video mentions this), so this sentence is attributing something not stated by the source and then claiming it as a fact. Then the nose ring: "for some commentators it was the serum piercing that has really sealed the deal for many" as "it adds a queer vibe". Cows can also be perfoed, it is not uncommon, and I dont' know how a nose ring falls within female anatomy. Basically, this sentence is misattributing stuff not said by the publication, that was said by random online non-experts on bovines. If it is to be kept, it should state the facts specifically said by the source instead. (CC) Tbhotch™ 01:08, 28 September 2025 (UTC)