Jump to content

Talk:N-Strike

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

split article

[edit]

should n-strike elite be split off into another article?Nerfmaster8 (talk) 02:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Been thinking about this since last year. Perhaps when the time comes, N-Strike Elite will have its own article. - Areaseven (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
if you want, i can split it for you as long as the disagreements come to a close.Nerfmaster8 (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

reversion of speculative additions

[edit]

I do not know if this user is aware of new information that is being released as the recent reverts on both this article and on Nerf Blasters seem to be due to a lack of knowledge. Since it doesn't seem like many of the editors have a good understanding of what goes on, please take a look at the following list of reliable sources.

  • Nerf Nation (Facebook and Twitter): Official Public Relations
  • foamfromabove
  • adultfansofnerf
  • clickclickbamf
  • basicnerf
  • mylastdart

Nerfmaster8 (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem here, exactly? That User:Areaseven is adding information without a reliable source? I notice you reverting "leaked information, Hasbro has asked to refrain from spread this information any further.", but if reliable sources exist, Wikipedia can report what they say, even if a corporation would prefer that we did not. --McGeddon (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, what exactly is your problem with me? There are dozens of anonymous users who regularly make edits on these articles, yet you've decided to put all the blame on me because I've actively been monitoring the articles over the past two years. You even went on to rant about me on McGeddon's talk page, which forced me to defend myself and simply tell you to let it go. But no, you've decided to make it personal and continue to rant about me here. So for the last time, let it go.- Areaseven (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
i only had a problem over you in particular reverting my edits when those were justified and can be backed up by publicly available information. that was it, nothing else. i have clearly explained my issue with you.
when did i blame you for those other edits? i pointed out why i made those changes in the edit summariesNerfmaster8 (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, with the exception of Nerf Nation, the sources you mentioned above are fan blogs, which are a complete no-no for references here on Wikipedia. - Areaseven (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
those may be fan blogs but they also receive official information directly from Hasbro's public relation and to post said information on their blog. are you telling me that these are not reliable sources due to this?Nerfmaster8 (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia should use reliable, published sources. A fan blog is not a reliable source, even if the information it is quoting is direct from Hasbro, for the simple reason that a fan blog could be misquoting or misrepresenting that information. If Hasbro haven't publically published the statement themselves, and no reliable source has published it, Wikipedia cannot use it. --McGeddon (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
so should the previous leaked information removed be kept in this case? nothing from Hasbro has been published on these.Nerfmaster8 (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting something like this seems fine because it's not sourced. It should only be added back if someone can provide a reliable source confirming the product's existence. --McGeddon (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no, if you take a look at the my edits, the edits that areaseven reverted were not in good faith. the leaked information that was added came from baidu, a Chinese website. that information is coming from people in China,which is where the products are being made. Do those leaks count as reliable sources?Nerfmaster8 (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone provide a link to the Baidu site? If Baidu itself is a news source or blog operated by a respected authority in the field then it should be fine, but if it's a lesser fan blog then it probably won't meet WP:RS. --McGeddon (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't use the website much but it seems similar to reddit.
here is a link: http://www.baidu.com/
note: the information that i removed with edit summaries "leaked" came from baidu.
Nerfmaster8 (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it's "similar to reddit" then it's probably WP:USERGENERATED and of no use as a source. Can you provide an actual link to the "leak", for proper context? --McGeddon (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
it seems as if the latest warning from Hasbro has caused most of the violating posts to be removed from baidu, having a bit of difficulty finding the same posts again. the following are from reddit.
Nerfmaster8 (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Images uploaded and comments made by Redditors are WP:USERGENERATED and can't be used as a source for anything. --McGeddon (talk) 09:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, Nerfmaster8, I don't know why you're still carrying this baggage on me. I will admit that I mistakenly posted some of that leaked information, and I admit that I've only known about Nerf products for the past three years, but that doesn't mean you can use up an entire talk page to grab everyone's attention about it. As far as I know, there is no version of this where you come out on top. Maybe you're right that you have more knowledge about Nerf, but it's all on you. Because this is Wikipedia, and little edits are not worth avenging. - Areaseven (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

my problem here was with the leaked content, not you. I have already explained that my problem was you reverting my edits within less than 5 minutes after i made the justified edits. when i attempted to communicate with you, you were unwilling to discuss things. that is why i went to ask another editor for advice on dealing with you.Nerfmaster8 (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If your problem is with the leaked content, why did you address me on the title of this discussion? - Areaseven (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Calling out a particular editor on problematic reverts is fine - saying that they "seem to be due to a lack of knowledge" is a little rude, but there's no reason why this didn't merit a talk page section. --McGeddon (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
because you were a part of the original problem (reverting edits that were justified), the leaks were a sub issue that arose upon mention of sources. I ask that you please go and get informed so that these do not continue. i apologize if when i said that you had a lack of knowledge was a bit rude but i was being honest about the problem at hand when it arose. next time, i ask that you allow fair communication to prevent further disruptions.Nerfmaster8 (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Directory of products / content fork of Nerf Blaster

[edit]

So it turns out the Nerf Blaster article used to look a lot like this one, with a big list of guns and unsourced analysis of them all, until it was cut back to a stub in January 2011, citing WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This N-Strike article (previously just a redirect to Nerf) quietly inherited a lot of the deleted material in February 2011, and although it's not identical, it's covering exactly the same unnecessary ground.

Other, similar content seems to have ended up in the Dart Tag, Nerf N-Force and Nerf Vortex articles. Once we've cut out the WP:NOTDIRECTORY content, it looks like we're just left with a lot of stubs. Should we merge them with the Nerf Blaster article, or the main Nerf article? Or something else? Or is there an argument for keeping all this? --McGeddon (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the lists of blasters (these are not firearms) can be backed up by images posted when Nerf nation publicly confirms the blasters. either by image or by the product descriptions found on shopping websites. these are somewhat useful though if anyone wishes to delete this, i have no need for it as i have more than enough information stored already-these descriptions are pretty basic compared to what i have and on nerf wiki.
if anyone wants to remove links to nerf wiki, i have no problem with that though that is a source of information-there is an archive of official announcements located on the home page just for reference. if you wish to remove them and add the stubs to the main nerf blaster article, that should be fine.Nerfmaster8 (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

Perhaps worth a formal discussion: from its content and sources, I think N-Strike should be merged into Nerf Blaster. The current N-Strike article is basically a product catalogue with only a couple of non-primary references, and some of its content ("All Nerf blasters come packaged with a set of foam darts") seems a better fit for the Nerf Blaster article, which currently says nothing much about ammo. The Nerf Blaster article is relatively short and could easily contain a lengthy section writing in detail about the N-Strike range and summarising the types of products that it features. McGeddon (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I think merging N-Strike into Nerf Blaster is a good idea, because Nerf has Blaster much info. But I think putting some more info into Nerf Blaster could also be a good idea. And a message to Areaseven, I didn't create the article Nerf Recon CS-6. NerfersUnited (talk) 15:06, August 7, 2014
I agree that N-Strike should be merged. The existing Nerf Blaster article contains more than enough information that the average reader (not a Nerf collector) needs. If they need more info, they can simply go to the official Nerf website or fan-made resources such as Nerf Wiki. - Areaseven (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if nobody's actually objecting, shall we make a start on moving the content across? --McGeddon (talk) 11:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After two months of silence and no objections, I've gone ahead and merged the article, specifically the details about ammunition and accessories. The only gun in the range which seems to have had any kind of secondary sourcing is the award-winning Stampede ECS, so that's the only one I've included specific mention of. --McGeddon (talk) 10:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:N-Strike&oldid=1173682165"