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

Email

Re your email: As Wikidatans, we strive to avoid data duplication. Thryduulf is just making sure that there's no other way to present the data. And also making sure that everyone else knows there's no other way. Incidentally, both of those goals are important. An "artist" property looks like it duplicates the other properties of which we communicated earlier. --Izno (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: Just seems confusing that there's all these discrete properties that could be solved the same way as "artist" is being proposed. I have trouble with inconsistency. I.e., why not "creator" with "has role" "director". -- ferret (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it is "ease of query" with a different level of refinement, and some of it is "director is applied in different domains, so it might have different meanings and thus need a more refined relationship". Example: A director in anime production is not the same as a director in video game production, I don't believe. --Izno (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So should we avoid using the director property...? If I were using creater and has role, I'd pick the same "director" item as the qualifier for both. I know that's just an example, but in the end it feels to me there's two approaches and Wikidata is inconsistently using them, or has shifted stances without an effort to rectify older forms. -- ferret (talk) 12:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, maybe I didn't understand the initial question. Can you rephrase? --Izno (talk) 13:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me use a different example. There is a property for Illustrator. We can't use it because its very narrowing defined, at least in textual context. It's for people who illustrate books. But why have it at all? There's two possible designs: Have discrete properties for a given role, or to have a generic property like creator that accepts a "has role" qualifier. It seems both designs are in use, but with new property requests being opposed on the basis of the "has role" model. -- ferret (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout 4

thanks for fixing that ref link on fallout 4 Optimusprimerotf (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NP. -- ferret (talk) 02:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon GO

You undid my edits that said "Pokémon GO is not just an augmented reality game, but also an alternate reality game," saying "Please provide a source. Reading over alternate reality, it doesn't appear Pokemon Go really has any of the hallmarks."

I admit that it is kind of an open question and a grey area, but so is calling it "augmented reality." The problem is, there's an "AR" switch that allows players to turn off their camera, and most players turn this off, for two reasons: battery life, and it makes the game easier. But if you turn off the camera, is it still an "augmented reality" game? No, not really.

There's a bunch of other terms that may apply to Pokémon GO: Transreality gaming, Alternate reality game, Mixed reality

We can't just call it an augmented reality game because the marketing departments of Niantic and Nintendo tell us to call it that.

Pokemon Go edits

Your remark that "Multiple editors have removed it due to prior talk page discussions" is not correct. My edits are being deleted with NO prior discussion. They are being deleted simnply because some don't like the content, regardless of it being properly sourced and documented. My contributions are supported by quality reliable sources. Please let me know ASAP if you are supporting the deletion of my edits without discussion. What you are supporting is against Wikipedia policies. Santamoly (talk) 06:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Santamoly: The "CIA Involvement" has been discussed before here if you're talking about those edits. There is also a discussion currently going on here. Your claim of there being "no prior discussion" is obviously invalid.

So far, the reverts have been:

I revert you
You revert me
Dissident93 reverts you
You revert Dissident
Brianga reverts you
You revert Brianga
Ferret reverts you

I suggest you read WP:BRD and WP:3RR. Also, WP:UNDUE might work here too. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchyte covered everything that needed said, really. The sources are not reliable, and "CIA involvement" has been prior discussed, regardless of whether or not you tweaked the content and use a different website to source it. Join the talk page if you want to argue for inclusion. Just because you use a ref tag does not make your content "unrevertable." -- ferret (talk) 12:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Oblivion

How isn't Nexus a reliable source?--Armanikoka (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Armanikoka: It's less about whether Nexus is a reliable source (which is questionable), and more that the source didn't support the statement. You can't say something like "Mods were created to address lots of bugs" and link a list of mods. All that shows is that there are (lots of) mods for Oblivion. The claims such as "high number of bugs reported" or "as an efficient solution" aren't in the source. It represents original research. -- ferret (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baldur's Gate Enhanced Edition - Approve of your recent edits

Just approved your recent edits; did a rewrite of it, but I accept and approve your edit that you did, although I did slightly amend that first paragraph. Anyway, is there a chance you could do the same to the Leads and Infoboxes of both the Baldur's Gate II: Enhanced Edition article and the Icewind Dale: Enhanced Edition article, perchance?GUtt01 (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GUtt01: I'll give them a glance shortly. You may want to read over WP:LEAD. It covers the details of what I said in my edit notes, such as trying to avoid references in the lead, etc. As you continue editing I would advise doing the lead last. Build out the body and add references there first, then do the lead as a summary of the body. What I said about references in leads technically applies to the infobox as well. The details of the infobox should be in the article body somewhere, with sources. The best place to be verbose about when particular releases for each platform was made would be the Development sections. Sometimes there's a release section as well, but its less common. -- ferret (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit on 2K / 2K Games

Hi there,

I'm still new to actually contributing edits on Wikipedia, so forgive my dumb questions.

A couple days ago, I updated basic information for 2K. Items that aren't editorializing or false. You, apparently, reverted my corrections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K_Games

The name that the company has gone by for years now is "2K." We stopped calling it "2K Games."

The only other item I updated is that 2K Marin is no longer open as a studio. It hasn't been for years now.

And, yes, I work at 2K. But, again, that shouldn't hold any bearing on the above points.

How do we go about correcting this?

Thanks in advance.

GizmoGladstone (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)Darren (yes, I'm from 2K) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GizmoGladstone (talk • contribs) 22:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GizmoGladstone: You should discuss this at the talk page, Talk:2K Games. There is already a section on this subject. Wikipedia's rules on this are somewhat complicated, but we do not necessarily use the official name of an organization. We often use the common name, based on reliable secondary sources. Most still refer to the company as 2K Games. 2K Games, Inc. appears to still be the legal name of the company even if marketing material has dropped the rest. For example, this 2016 NBA2k16 sweepstakes refers to the company as 2K Games, Inc in the legal text ("Employees, officers and directors of 2K Games, Inc. (“Sponsor”)"). -- ferret (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is SteamSpy not a viable source?

Hi, I'm new to editing Wikipedia so excuse the dumb question, but what makes the copies sold number on https://steamdb.info/app/730/graphs/ not reliable? Clearly it's a well selling game and deserves to be on the list of most sold on PC. Cirmanman (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)18:07, 8 September 2016 (CET)[reply]

@Cirmanman: There is a talk section at the article already about this, but here's the quick version: SteamSpy itself states that these are ownership estimates only. They are not hard sales figures, which is what this article requires. They are statistical estimates based on a sampling of Steam accounts. SteamDB itself is again uses estimates and database pulls and is not considered a reliable source with a history of fact checking and editorial oversight. SteamDB has a note next to the sales figures that the data is from SteamSpy. Unfortunately, Valve does not release sales statistics for Steam. This results in Wikipedia being unable to show sales figures for these games. We have a similar issue with Xbox consoles, because Microsoft no longer releases sales figures. Please give a read over Wikipedia's verification policy for more information. -- ferret (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Game engine

Hi, can you {{Help me}} to get this new game engine Xenko, still in beta, but with a website from Silicon Studio (xenko.com) inserted into the List of Game Engines? I'm new to this, but I pretty much copied the style and text of similar entries, and now I honestly do know what I am doing wrong that you say I'm breaking the table. And what does red link mean? I created a ritaturk Talk page today hoping that will help me. Thanks for your help!

Ritaturk (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritaturk: One of the reasons I have reverted the addition is because it broke another row in the table, causing the name of another engine already in the table to be lost. A "redlink" means an article link in Wikipedia that appears in red because it does not exist, like Xenko. Only notable engines backed by reliable sources should be added to the table, and at this time, Xenko does not appear to be notable. Wikipedia's policies on notability are at WP:N. You should also read about verifiability and reliable sources. There is a draft article for Xenko at Draft:Xenko. If you spend some time working on the draft and then submit it for review, the reviewer will either move it to Wikipedia or leave you further suggestions or advice on what needs improved. Once approved, it would then be a valid entry to add to the table. -- ferret (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret: I tried to fix this Xenko entry again, this time using the visual editor and no matter what I do, some of the entries stays bold, even when I try to edit in the text. Also, we have no link in the first column (as I see Turbulenz and others have no hot link btw) until I clean up the Xenko:Draft page, which I will do tomorrow. Meanwhile, I am trying to finish this entry and understand the wiki system before moving on to editing the Xenko:Draft page on Wikipedia. Can you help me if anything looks wrong (before reverting it again)? Ritaturk (talk) 02:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritaturk: It would really be better for the engine to have an article and sources before it is added to the list. I will wait to revert, but will remove it again in a week or two if there isn't any progress. I do not typically use the Visual Editor, but it looks like it inserted the row with each cell set as a table header cell. Sometimes the VE doesn't behave quite right with tables. I have corrected it here. I've removed Turbulenz as it has been unsourced for quite a while. -- ferret (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret: Thanks so much, I will work on the draft Xenko page asap. Yes, Turbulenz has closed down, from what i heard, so good call there.

2600:1010:B028:5529:D989:6662:5237:55A9 (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning warning

I am fully aware of all three of the Wiki policies and was not in violation of any of them up to date. So far, all I have done is become rather agitated by a certain editor who seems to take a liking to messing around with me. If you read the edits they made to the article i was working on, none of their remarks offered anything to edify me in the way of what they were requesting I do, or why they continually forced their opinion on me. As a matter of fact, I tried to fix the article three times, and all of which were deleted without any explanation as to how they could be fixed despite the existence of several wiki policies that I quoted for her edification. In reality, I made no attacks, but rather advised against further contact with me due to her unhelpful, rather frustrating edits which only waste my time, and make things harder for me. If you are a fair judge, you will see that I have had no desire to fight with anyone, as 331dot and i had no problem working things out when he explained the situation. Therefore, in accordance with wiki policy, i have asked for the opposing editor to back down, as no consensus can ever be reached with someone who expresses no interest in reaching such an end. Arcmind (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_best-selling_game_consoles&action=edit

	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_best-selling_game_consoles&action=edit
	It is simply not true that the Xbox One has sold only 10 million consoles, and thats a fact. The PS4 change was not as major but I think you should revert the Xbox One info as EA gave that sales report themselves. (other sales reports to around the same #.) Please reply with your thoughts, Keiski72 (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]