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, 20: 60 days

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]

@Ferret: I was wondering if I could get your advice on the Draft:Xenko page? I don't know for instance why the page [1] says {{Multiple issues}} for instance toward the top or who put that in there. Should I just remove that when I'm done editing? Can you look over what I've added so far and let me know what you think? Ritaturk (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritaturk: {{Multiple issues}} is a template used to combine several issue notices about an article. These templates are typically disabled if the article is moved to Draft though, which can look odd. The two issues listed as "Notability" and "Primary Sources". {{Notability}} is meant to show that the article may not meet notability guidelines. This was why the article was moved to Draft space in the first place. You can certainly remove this. If the article is promoted, that generally shows that notability has been met. The second issue is {{Primary sources}}. This notice is meant to show that the article is relying either entirely, or too heavily, on primary sources. That is, the source is the subject of the article itself. This can be addressed by using reliable secondary sources. You can certainly remove both notices, but you will have to satisfy both of these conditions before an AFC reviewer will approve your draft.

Regarding the current quality of the draft, it has not improved much. It is currently still using only three sources, all of which are primary. I see you had previously made some additions, but another editor reverted them. I do not know why exactly, you would have to reach out to them. I can tell you that your edits had some issues though, such as using sources that were definitely not reliable, and also referring to references directly in a manner like "See also [7]." This is not how prose should be written. The article should tell the reader about the subject, and the reference is there to show where the information came from. -- ferret (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret: Thanks much. I went back thru the page's history and saw that the user who reverted my work is a semi-protected user and only allows confirmed users to communicate with him/her. So, I cannot message him or her the way I can you. Maddeningly enough, he reverted dates and releases that are publicly known, and also removed all of my secondary sources - and I'm not sure why he/she would do that? I also don't understand how you and him can decide or not if my sources are not reliable? How is reliability judged exactly? I have found those secondary sources thru established sources. Thanks again for any help here. Ritaturk (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritaturk: Reliability is discussed in this policy. As far as most websites go, a basic rule of thumb is that most forums, social sites, or blogs are inherently unreliable. Anything user generated or self-published usually. Reliable sources are known for fact checking and editorial oversight. As far as video gaming goes, there is a vetted list of reliable sources available at WP:VG/RS. That page also has a link to a Google custom source that will search just the vetted sites. -- ferret (talk) 10:11, 22 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]

Best selling consoles

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]

@Keiski72: The figures you're trying to use that come from EA have been added and reverted repeatedly over the past year. I assure you, we all understand that the sales figures are out of date. However, we have to use official sales numbers, and Microsoft does not provide them. This has been discussed numerous times on various Xbox talk pages and related articles. You can look at the archives for the Xbox One talk page to see how this is repeatedly discussed. Please do not reply to the archive though. If you would like to discuss this further, it should be done at Talk:Xbox One first, before being propagated to the numerous lists and tables that mention Xbox One. Note there is a section at the bottom that already addresses the sales figure though. -- ferret (talk) 13:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret: Thank you for explaining that but it really sucks that it can mislead people. Would it be possible to add a column to the table or something of the likes to show official Microsoft sales figures and also the estimated sales figures? There must be some resolution as this has been an issue on here since Microsoft stopped giving official sales numbers. Thanks for your help! Keiski72 (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Keiski72: The PlayStation Vita article is in a similar position. Sony no longer releases sales figures for the Vita, so we can't update it. Wikipedia's core policy is that we must be able to verify things with sources. There's no way to verify any of the sales figures other than estimates or rumor from third parties. This is why the highest known "sold units" for Xbox One is 3 million, but the highest known "shipped units" is 10+ million, because a Microsoft representative revealed that 10+ million had been shipped (Shipped, specifically, versus sold). It seems the established consensus at this time is not to show estimates. If you believe it warrants a wider discussion (Fixing just Xbox One wouldn't be a good solution), I would bring the topic up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. This is the talk page for Wikipedia Project Video Games. Many editors keep an eye on it and can weigh in on the topic. It would be the best place to establish a new consensus to include estimates next to official figures. That said, make sure you read over core Wikipedia policies first, such as WP:V and WP:RS. -- ferret (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User page

Your comment cracked me up. Feel free to use my user page as much as you want for yours, with or without attribution, haha. This does remind me of the time when someone once took my user page and copy/pasted everything directly word for word, even formatting, and made it their user page, only with their user name subbed in. That was bizarre to stumble across, since it wasn't even someone I had interacted with much at that point. But even that I was fine with (once I got over my initial confusion.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added that as a whim ;) -- ferret (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/ReCore/archive1

Made a request for ReCore to be peer reviewed. Would love your insight. Cognissonance (talk) 11:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, @Cognissonance, I don't have time to do a peer review at this time. -- ferret (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interview?

Hi Ferret, The WP:VG Newsletter would like to do a brief feature on Wikidata this quarter. We're reaching out to you and Izno to see if you would be interested in answering a few (10 of fewer) questions to help editors get a better grasp on the concept. We're running a bit behind schedule currently, so if you're interested then it would be ideal for us to get your responses by Monday the 10th at the latest. Is this something you would be interested in? -Thibbs (talk) 04:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thibbs: Sure, though Izno really guided me through what Wikidata is myself. :) -- ferret (talk) 10:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK great! I have a draft of the questions here. You an edit that page directly if you'd like and I'll format it and shift it to the newsletter after we've heard back from you and Izno. Please use one of the two "ANSWER HERE" sections as your own and remember to sign your answers. Thank you very much for your help! -Thibbs (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take the #1 spot. :D --Izno (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thibbs: I've glanced over the questions and they are a bit beyond my Wikidata knowledge in some areas, but I'll fill in some secondary responses to Izno's replies, more particular to what we have tried to implement for WPVG. My experience is almost exclusively in working to implement things for WPVG, rather than direct involvement in Wikidata on its own. I'll give him a little bit to get started. -- ferret (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ferret and Izno: thank you both! I've let the Newsletter staff know that you're in the process of answering the questions and I've suggested the date of October 10 as the final deadline before we publish. Unfortunately I'm only really available for a few hours a day during the work week if you have any questions, but I'll certainly check in at least once a day and I should be much more available on the weekend. Thanks again for the helpful answers and explanations. -Thibbs (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thibbs: I've been away several days. If I don't get back to it by tomorrow just strike my current answers. -- ferret (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I can do that if you like. I'd prefer both sets of answers (maybe even just as additional notate bene), but if you'd prefer to be stricken then that's fine too. :) -Thibbs (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thibbs: Finished it up this morning. -- ferret (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

I made some from NYC for you! NicoARicoA (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Turbulenz

Hello Ferret,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Turbulenz for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Abbottonian (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Declined, no way that's an A7 with that sourcing present. Sergecross73 msg me 18:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was having a hard time writing a response to that. :) -- ferret (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My edit on Lea Michele

I'm sorry if you thought I was wrong but I was right. It used to say 2009-2015 but I changed it due to the fact later on in the text it said she joined Glee in late 2008. I made no mistake. Watermelongrape (talk) 09:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Watermelongrape: I see the text you mean, regarding the filming of the pilot episode. I still believe 2009 is probably more appropriate for the lead, since the show is viewed as having a 2009 start. That was the basis I used in reverting. Feel free to change it again if you disagree, but make sure your edit summary mentions the reason so other editors will understand. Unfortunately, Wikipedia sees a lot of date changes that are done by vandals, so sometimes small changes like this get reverted if they are unexplained. -- ferret (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ORCP

Hi Ferret, I’ve just been having another look at your entry at WP:ORCP. It may well be time for you to take a serious decision now. Let me know what you think. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: I'm putting some serious thought into it. I appreciate your feedback, it carries a lot of weight with me. -- ferret (talk) 12:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Trump

Hello,

you reversed my correction of Frederick Trumps original last name. Why?

Drumpf was changed to Trump only after arrival in the US, due to anti German sentiments at the time. It is literally impossible that he was born in Germany and with the name Trump.

Additionally, calling him a businessman is misleading. He was first and foremost a procurer. That is a type of businessman, granted, but "businessman" certainly doesn't convey an accurate representation of him. Procurer is much more accurate and an important distinction in evaluating his character.

Please justify the reversal of two completely accurate corrections.

Thanks.