Talk:PlayStation 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee PlayStation 2 was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
October 24, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed

'Release date' broken, displaying wrong date[edit]

The 'Release date' function of the information sidebar is broken, it's saying the PS2 was released 'January1,1990'/'26 years ago'. This is obviously not the case. I'm only a wee new Wikipedia boy so I'm not sure how the function used for getting elapsed time from a given date works so I wasn't able to fix it.

I know a couple of programming languages, and the basics of JavaScript (but I could probably just look at an example and figure it out), so if someone points me in the direction of a tutorial on how the Wikipedia functions work I don't mind fixing the problem. Or someone could just fix it themselves if that'd be easier.

PS2 Date Error.png

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nornironhax (talkcontribs) 10:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done - I reverted an edit from an IP user, (talk). In other words, the date is corrected as "March 4, 2000". I don't think the sidebar is broken, it's just vandalism done by an IP user. // Hounder4 // 11:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Online Functionality Section[edit]

Hello everyone, I was having a discussion with another user named Ferret after I edited this section. This was some of the discussion, Ferret: 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.

Me: I guess my point was that both and 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, 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 (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Ferret: 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)

-- Basically the section stated previously that online functionality for all games was stopped on March 31st, 2016. This however was not the case. This was a rumor based on the fact that Sony would be shutting down the DNAS servers for Final Fantasy 11. This lead to articles being writing that all games would stop working once this happened. However, many games did not experience issues until April 4th, 2016, and some other games still work even after both of these dates. The cited source for this was, but this site made no mention of the date specifically.

I own a PS2, and online still does work for the games I own. However I understand that this is probably considered "original research" so we cannot use it. I also know of many internet forums where this fact has been discussed like as one example. However after reading the guidelines that Ferret linked to me, it seems that, via wikipedia's guidelines, it seems that all internet forums are sweepingly deemed questionable sources. How can we make it so this section of the article contains the true information, but also make it verifiable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I accidentally double posted, my b.

EDIT : I found this: "An Internet forum with identifiable, expert and credible moderators with a declared corrective moderation policy may, exceptionally, be considered reliable for some topics. In this sense, where moderators act as editors to review material and challenge or correct any factual errors, they could have an adequate level of integrity. This exception would only be appropriate to fields that are not well covered by print sources, where experts traditionally publish online. In cases where self-published material has been published by a professional researcher or other expert in the field, a source published in one of these media may be considered reliable in some cases." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I made an attempt to find a source that made any specific claims to "all servers being shutdown" and I could not locate anything. The two things I most often found were when several years ago, EA shutdown most of their games, and of course, the fact that March 31, 2016 was the end for Final Fantasy. Since it appears that there are some games still working, (I.e. there is nothing to say they are shutdown), I don't think this article needs any mention of it. For example, the article for Final Fantasy 11 would be the appropriate place to document that the servers are closed. In the case of a game where online services still work, there's nothing to say really. -- ferret (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with what you have said. If there is not reliable source that all games are offline, then it should not be included yet. There is no reason to point it out at this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on PlayStation 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)