Jump to content

User talk:ferret

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 73.114.25.254 (talk) at 03:24, 18 June 2016 (→PS2 Online). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 knowDYK comment symbol. 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.

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) 17:02, 9 June 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

(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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.99.37.40 (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]
On the first mention, I would say something like "fel energy, a type of unholy magic" and that should suffice for the general reader. As for the reviews, articles aren't permanent. The reviews are negative right now, and we have reliable sources to back that. If they become mixed or positive, we'll update then. -- ferret (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the misunderstanding - "(talk page stalker)" is actually reference to me, not you. A talk page stalker is a Wikipedia term for someone who joins discussions on someone else's talk page in efforts to help out. Ferret and I commonly answer requests/questions on each others talk page is all. Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.99.37.40 (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MOBA genre needs to be redefined, its not subgenre of RTS anymore

I added what information is missling in MOBA discussion page, as reply to your message. --Echoblu (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About the Parent field

Alright read it, thanks for the acknowledgement still getting use to one or two little things.In future I might add a parent field after the owner field.once again Thanks. BBMatBlood (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BBMatBlood: The owner field is to show the ownership percentages of a private company. In the case of game studios that are subsidiaries, it is not appropriate as they are wholly owned by their parent. The type would be subsidiary, and the parent company that owns them should be listed in the parent field. The owner field should be omitted entirely. -- ferret (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Game Engine List - Atomic Game Engine entry

Hello! I've attempted adding the Atomic Game Engine to the Game Engine List page. The Atomic Game Engine is an MIT licensed engine that runs on Windows, Mac, Linux, Android, iOS, and WebGL. I understand that we need more notability, though please don't consider sharing valuable technology with the world spam :) If you have advice on how we can improve notability, that would be welcome. In the meantime, I will work on generating an acceptable Wikipedia page for the engine once notability requirements are met, thank you! :)

Laraenge (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Laraenge: You've attempted the add the engine to the list four times, and its the only edits you've made, so it does seem a little promotional. If you can get your draft completed and accepted, that will establish notability, and I'll be glad to see it on the list. But right now, please leave it off the list. While working on the draft, make sure you read the notability guidelines at WP:N and about veritibility at WP:V. These are core Wikipedia processes. Notability is established through reliable secondary sources that discuss the topic in-depth (I.e. not just a passing mention). See WP:RS for information about reliable sources. Although more focused on video games themselves, the list of reliable sources at WP:VG/RS may be a good starting point. There is a custom google search linked there that searches only the vetted reliable sources relating to video games. Please also read WP:REFUND/G13. This page describes how to recover the draft you had previously worked, which has since been deleted as abandoned as no one was working on it for a long time. -- ferret (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS2 Online

"How in the world does one unreliable source mean more are ok? Removed the entire section as its unsourced and no source supports it that I can find."

I guess my point was that both playstation2.onlineconsoles.com and ps2onlinegaming.com are in the same "tier of reliability" and that I thought it was the standards for the page that would allow them both, not that they were both unreliable. I just wanted to help put the accurate information in the section. I did not know about this talk page until just now, and I'm glad I do because I wanted to have a page to discuss without repeatedly undoing each others' edits.

I own and use my PS2 online, it is still functional but I am not sure what you would deem an acceptable source of this information. Would a YouTube video proving it be acceptable? Does a certain news article have to cover it? What determines what is acceptable? I am sure there's probably a guideline, but I see pages on wikipedia with varying degrees of references. There are other pages on Wikipedia that reference ps2onlinegaming.com, should those references not exist? What about pages for individual games that currently have explanations for their workarounds? Is that a more acceptable place for this information?

Not intending to be a jerk, just want to get the information out there, and learn about some things on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.204.60 (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This should be discussed at the article talk page, Talk:PlayStation 2. There isn't a such thing as an article with a lower standard for reliability on Wikipedia. The core policy is at WP:V and WP:RS. User submitted reviews and sources, etc, are inherently considered unreliable, see WP:USERG. It's possible unreliable sources have been added to articles but not noticed, but when challenged they are likely to be removed. -- ferret (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I can copy paste us over there then. I have read the articles you have linked. If I understand correctly, the standards for the site seem to be high, and quite a few pages on wikipedia I believe do not follow these guidelines. That being said I'd rather those pages remain as they are, rather than change them all over something like this. Hopefully there is a way to state the truth which is also verifiable within the guidelines of the website.

Battlefield 4 sales / VGchartz

Hello,

I apologise for the wrong reference ^^. But the previous figure is without a single reference either so I wanted to correct it. But it seems there's only the same one as later in the article (Part sales), with only 7 million (14 million seems more likely, no? I don't have the game so ...)

Anyway, thank you for your work here and have a nice week-end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Touhara (talk • contribs) 01:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ferret&oldid=725823957"