User talk:ferret

Working on a review update

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

• Module:Video game reviews/sandbox
• Template:Video game reviews/testcases#More
• Module:Video game reviews/data/sandbox

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)

@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)

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)

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

@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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

Hi Ferret, that'd be nice if we can discuss about the particulars of your motivations for deleting my contributions on this page. First, I'd like to mention that within my sources, are not only forums but news mags about video games, and I added lemonde article as source as well. Is this sufficient ? or must we change something more, like tame the tone or something.

thanks Lightness1024 (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Lightness1024: I recommend that you use the talk page for the article, Talk:Battlefield 1. It looks like someone has already started a discussion. -- ferret (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.99.37.40 (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.114.25.254 (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

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)

@Touhara: No problem. Visit WP:VG/RS, it has a list of video game related sources that are vetted as reliable. There's also a link to a custom google search that will only return results from those sites. You may be able to find a source that way. -- ferret (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Why do you keep marking me as vandalism and saying I don't provide sources in regards to Critical Response?

The article's Critical Response section talks exclusively about the critics response to the movie at both Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes. I want to include the equally as important if not more important general audience consensus from both of the same sources. I have provided links to the sources which are already cited as good sources. Can you please explain to me why you are censoring my update? It has valuable information and good sources.

Again you claim it's "Vandalism" for not "citing a reliable source." This simply isn't true and you are being unfair and inaccurate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.197.204 (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2016‎ (UTC)

Your edits were reverted by multiple people. In my own edit notes, I left a response telling you that this had already been discussed on the talk page and that these reviews are unsuitable per WP:USERG. You ignored the warnings and edit notes that other editors left and continued to re-add the content, which is disruptive, and that is why I gave you a final warning following the ones you already had received. Feel free to join the discussion on the talk page about user/audience reviews, but do not add the content again. -- ferret (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion on the topic. Could you kindly direct me to where this discussion is taking place? I feel it is valuable to the reader to see both what the critics consensus is as well as the general audience, especially in a situation where it differentiates so greatly - (Critics in the 2-3 range, general audience in the 8-9 range). Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are both acceptable sources but it seems disingenuous to show only half of the information from the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.197.204 (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussions are at Talk:Warcraft (film)#Critics vs Audiances and Talk:Warcraft (film)#Proposed: additional critic section. There's a few edit requests asking for it to be added as well that have been declined. Critic review scores on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are acceptable. User reviews are not, and this is the case over all of English Wikipedia, not just this article. This is a topic that comes up with many new films and video games. Again, see WP:USERG concerning Wikipedia's policy on user generated content. -- ferret (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for fixing those spelling mistakes, I don't know how I messed up the spelling of "released". Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem ;) -- ferret (talk) 12:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Coheed and Cambria

http://puu.sh/pCcEy/a7057deadd.png

http://puu.sh/pCcGq/a9c304b6c2.png

They don’t fall under those roles? Really, now?

—212.252.163.135 (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out! Just before your edits, another editor had changed the timeline and I missed it. I have restored it to the original version from May. Claudio and Travis both play rhythm and lead, with lots of dual leads. The rest of the article is in line with this, and the timeline shouldn't have been changed. -- ferret (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but isn’t it usually Claudio playing rhythm whilst Travis is lead? You can especially see this in live performances. I might be wrong, but Cobalt and Calcium agrees with this as well.

Considering Claudio’s already the lead vocalist, it’d be a lot easier for him to play rhythm most of the time (not always—especially evidently in the “Welcome Home” duet). Is there any known confirmation or source about their specific roles? If not, then for now… never mind. (And yeah, admittedly, the timeline was a bit of a mess, as accurate as it seemed to me.)

—212.252.163.135 (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Ignoring their roles for a moment, that last timeline update tried to do "too much", with triple colors and such. It made the timeline unreadable in my view. As for live performances, they so often trade off that its hard to say. Claudio plays a lot of parts while singing that I often wonder "Why is Travis strumming chords right now?". For example, Claudio plays the lead melody of Everything Evil while singing during shows, with Travis playing the chords. (At least at the last show I saw) I don't believe there's a source that really supports their roles, and while I don't have a link handy, I'm pretty sure in interviews they've always described it as both sharing the roles. -- ferret (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Changes to Star Citiezen Wiki

You left "Undoing changes to lead to restore typical article guidelines for VGs." as the reason for removing my changes, which is not a valid reason. The original article before my edits, was/is inaccurate and I updated it to better reflect the current situation and remove inaccuracies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutral2006 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, following guidelines such as MOS and WP:VG/GL IS a valid reason to undo an edit, as well as your removal of sourced content, spelling and grammar issues, and including content in the lede that is not in the article body. Per WP:BRD, please discuss your changes on the talk page at Talk:Star Citizen before making them again. -- ferret (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC) .

Editing Grammar and spelling is fine, including outdated and inaccurate content is not. As per the WP:VG/GL Lead section: The name of the game in bold italics, its gameplay genre, release date, platform, and other identifying information go first. Then, a brief summary of the article. Finally, why the game is notable and important; this is the key part of the lead section, because it establishes the main idea that will be carried throughout the article. comment added by Neutral2006 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the guidelines, and you are not editing in the fashion they are meant to be followed. Again, I request that you follow WP:BRD. Your edits have been contested, now discuss them on the talk page. Please self-revert and do so. -- ferret (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I am contesting the original article, it is inaccurate, do you wish to discuss the inaccuracies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutral2006 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Ferret has some valid concerns. I personally would especially object to the external linking to the game's Kickstarter page in the opening sentence as well. We don't generally link to external websites in the article bodies like that, not to mention, it comes off as rather WP:PROMOTIONal... Wikipedia is not a way to direct people to a game's website...

Please, rather than continually reverting, people go to the article talk page, and discuss point by point, the changes you want to be made, rather than arguing through edit summaries. Ferret and other editors may be able to piece together an acceptable compromise version through this method. Sergecross73 msg me 15:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

"Star Citizen is an upcoming space sim video game for Microsoft Windows and Linux." No its only available on Windows , there is no linux version. Speculation is not validNeutral2006 (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Please, again, use the article talk page at Talk:Star Citizen. There are multiple reliable sources in the article concerning planned Linux. That's what upcoming means. -- ferret (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Its miss leading as there has been no linux version in the five years this game has been in development, and Chris roberts himself as of 31 March 2015 has stated that the Linux version might not even happen as they have had many issues. Neutral2006 (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss each individual tiny issue you have with the article here on my talk page. Please, go enumerate the issues you see, with sources to back up your claims, on the talk page of the article at Talk:Star Citizen. Please read WP:RS and see a list of vetted video game reliable sources at WP:VG/RS. There are more editors than just me watching the article. -- ferret (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

You are refusing to discuss this?Neutral2006 (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm telling you I will discuss it (Along with any other editors who want) at the article's talk page, which you are refusing to use. My talk page is not the place to discuss a content dispute at a particular article. -- ferret (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I've even started it for you now. Talk:Star Citizen#Edit dispute with Neutral2006 concerning lede contents. -- ferret (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Lego Island

Good evening. I am the boy who has been reverting that deleted content on Talk:Lego Island. I initially felt like it was being blanked for no reason, but I am happy that you put the archiving into effect. Therefore, I no longer plan on restoring the content that I have been restoring for the last couple of months. Thank you. Have a good night. 2602:306:3357:BA0:F5D4:4FFD:86C:15BF (talk) 04:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)