User talk:ferret

This is Ferret's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19: 60 days

PS1 wobble

Hello,

I have a reliable source about the wobble. other one is an invalid source.

80.184.119.3 (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please link the source to me? -- ferret (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind I see it. I've filled out the full citation. -- ferret (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Working on a review update

Speaking of the review box, I've got my own stuff in the works.

But as you can see its broken. My skills in Lua are pretty much a joke, could you help me a bit? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero Serenity: Lay out for me what you're going for and I can take a look. I'm a programmer by trade, though Lua is not really my forte. Getting there though. -- ferret (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The testcase error you had is fixed here: Diff. The new parts table you had made was not being returned by the module. -- ferret (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lua isn't my forte either! We're in the same damned boat here. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 01:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero Serenity: Are you still working on this effort? I will be looking to use the sandboxes shortly for a different update to this template. -- ferret (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've iced it for the moment as my schedule has become rather booked. Can you dump it into my own box when you're ready to start updating? Thanks. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 19:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero Serenity: Your copy is in this diff. -- ferret (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MLB The Show 16

hello, my name is LJ Kurek. Do you know anyone that likes MLB The Show 16? I am trying to find some people to help edit the page. Thanks. --LJEnglish (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, can't say I have any particular interest in it. -- ferret (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! Thanks for the comment back. --LJEnglish (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint

I originally saw Take-Two Interactive on the owners section of Visual Concepts and 2K Play. I was not putting false data. -Thethomster2001

I did not suggest you put false data, only wanted to inform you about how the Infobox should be populated. The owner field is used to indicate the ownership percentages of a publicly held company. These are not publicly held companies, they are wholly owned subsidiaries of Take-Two. Take-Two therefore belongs in the parent field. The publishing label, 2K, does not own them. -- ferret (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reception chart

Hey. I see that you see things from my point of view regarding this. That person has been making that same unproductive change for some reason at other articles, including EA Sports UFC 2 and Unravel (video game). If you care and since you appear to agree with me, would you mind backing me up in saying that those charts the IP is adding are worse than the widely used ones? I started a section at Talk:EA Sports UFC 2. If you would rather not get involved (would be a good call as I myself despise these matters), then just ignore this. —DangerousJXD (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DangerousJXD: Unfortunately, you're just going to have to revert him when he comes through. He hops IPs and refuses to discuss issues on the article talk page OR his talk page. Warnings and messages explaining policy are removed without comment. He's been blocked multiple times for reverting editors who enforce WP:VGSCOPE, WP:VGAGG and even Template:Infobox video game doc. It's been a long term issue. His edits are essentially good faith but his refusal to honor project policies makes it disruptive. The best I can say is that if you revert him, he'll either edit war (And get blocked) or honor the policy (I.e. add new sources without re-introducing the reverted portion). @Sergecross73 has had to block him multiple times. -- ferret (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have encountered another user who likes actively butchering reception sections. I'm done now. No point in trying to clean up this mess. No point in trying to talk to a silent IP. I'm done. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DangerousJXD: I'd assume a little good faith on the part of Angeldeb82, as I'm confident they have nothing to do with the IP. (See the project talk section they made at WT:VG) As for the IP, some of us have been dealing with him for well over a year. It's just part of Wikipedia that we have to deal with IPs that don't follow guidelines or policy. -- ferret (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation 2

I was trying to use the same release date system as the one on the PlayStation Vita infobox (three main regions, with a note for the rest). This is also not unnecessary detail, but quite the opposite, by listing other regions in that note. I know it is unsourced but those dates were on this page for a long time, and got them again from an old revision. The PS2 articles in other languages, e.g. the Portuguese or Korean, list those dates I put in (e.g. Dec 23, 2003 for China). It must be accurate. --G&CP (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@G&CP: Those dates have been removed multiple times as unsourced. I'm not sure why the fact that they were in an old revision would mean that it's ok to add them back. We're on enwiki, and each Wiki project (different languages) have their own policies. The relevant policy here on enwiki is Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you can find sources for these dates, great. But if not, they should not be added to the article. -- ferret (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield 1

I'm sorry, i won't change it anymore to Frostbite 3 engine until there is a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel11221 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- ferret (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BF1 did not actually make it to the most viewed list in 24 Hours. Thanks: TheMaxXHD (I'm a noob at Wikipedia so sorry if I messed up) Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20160507202205/https://www.youtube.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMaxXHD9118 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 12 May 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the archive link, that helps confirm it. -- ferret (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Ferret. Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 17:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Call of Duty: World at War

Sorry about my revert; I didn't realise that the DS and PS2 versions of World at War have their own separate articles. -- Hounder4 19:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, I almost reverted it myself at first glance. -- ferret (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Big big sorry for that revert on Doom (2016 video game), I was using a tool which reverted that :( hope you understand!! Pranish|^Message 17:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pranish.rock: No problem, accidental reverts happen. :) -- ferret (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare

On 21 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the announcement trailer for Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare received over two million dislikes and is the second most disliked video on YouTube? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grit

The entry in List of game engines is a "notable" game engine. If you were to apply your same logic to the rest of the entries on the page, I suggest you remove about half of them as none of these other engines are any more "notable". You are using non-objective, non-quantifiable tests and criteria to basically allow yourself to wantonly remove entries at your whim. Basically, its what you decide it is according to your personal preference. There doesnt seem to be any quantifiable test on what is "notable". Evidence from its own community such as number of message board entries suggests it is likely more heavily used than many of your other entries. In fact, there is quantifiable evidence that Grit is a well established product, from its own source repository one can measure the minimum number of years it has been developed, do a source line count, and there is information and testability of the fact it is a functional product. So we have a baseless, non quantifiable, unscientific criteria being used to delete entries according to the personal bias of the editor. Millueradfa (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) When he says "notable", he's (assumably) referring to the fact that all the entries on the list have their own separate Wikipedia article. That's a common requirement for adding entries to a list, especially something like this, where it would be extremely easy to populate it all sorts of obscure, non-noteworthy engines rather quickly. And yes, notable does have a standard on Wikipedia, its called the WP:GNG. So in short, if you created an article for the engine, and it met the WP:GNG and doesn't get deleted, then it would be warranted to add it to the list. Otherwise, ferret is probably in the right here. Sergecross73 msg me 13:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Serge nailed it. Notable in this case refers to the Wikipedia policy on notability. Lists are not meant to just contain external links to anything out on the internet. Every engine currently on that list has an article here on Wikipedia and is supported by reliable secondary sources that establish (in Wikipedia term's) notability. -- ferret (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warcraft (film)

Only read now, but those reviews are from viewers right, I am not certain whether that would count as an official review. Fel is not explained anywhere else, I thought about adding it as fel spell/magic but that might create confusion with Medivh's magic- what are your thoughts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.99.37.40 (talk • contribs)

(talk page stalker) While it is good to strive to explain all concepts to the reader - articles are meant to be written for general audiences who can understand everything without having any prior on the subject - at the same time, Wikipedia doesn't wiki-link to other websites in the body of an article like that. You should probably come up with a different way of solving that issue. Sergecross73 msg me 17:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews on Rotten Tomato and Metacritic are the critic reviews, not the user reviews. The user reviews are actually somewhat better than the critic reviews, but still considered negative by both aggregators. Both aggregators are commonly used for this purpose and considered reliable. Regarding the "fel infusion", It would be more appropriate to remove the word "fel" and replace with a generic term like "magical energy", that average readers would understand. Yes, it's not the strict in-universe term, but its better to avoid in-universe anyways. As Serge mentioned and I left on your talk page, in-line external lines like this are frowned upon and generally inappropriate. On top of that Wikia sites are considered inherently unreliable. -- ferret (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker), is going a bit far when attempted to discuss. Anyhow - how would you solve the issue fel is used in between one or two times, so removing it completely might be problematic because there seems to be two entities of magic. I saw the negative and positive reviews by critics and the film just released I think it too early to put out a verdict and would be bad practice to put it as negative now, maybe one month interval might help viewers to reach a consensus.-this is just a suggestion.