User talk:ferret

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Disney Consumer Products and Interactive Media/Disney Consumer Products article split.[edit]

Hi there Ferret. This is a bit of a left field request, however, I feel as though your insight into the situation would be able to put this debate into consensus. Basically, Disney Consumer Products and Interactive Media (hereon DCPI) is a subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company that specialists in consumer products (e.g: toys) and interactive media (e.g: video games). The formation of the company was the merging of Disney Interactive and Disney Consumer Products. The outcome was that Disney Consumer Products and Disney Interactive were subsidised under DCPI (like how Sega Sammy was formed whilst still maintaining the legal entities of Sega and Sammy Corporation). However, the page provides an infobox for Disney Consumer. This wouldn't be a problem until you see that the website for Disney Consumer redirects to Disney Consumer Products and Interactive Media, likewise, the same occurs for the Disney Interactive website. The issue is whether to maintain the infobox of Disney Consumer in the DCPI page, or make a standalone article for Disney Consumer as there is enough information to warrant such an article split. The conversation is in talk:Disney Consumer Products and Interactive Media if you want more context. Thanks for your help. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the article in question and haven't read the talk page discussion, but I've noticed here and elsewhere that you seem to be viewing infoboxes as far more important than they warrant. Infoboxes are used to summarize key information, not define the topic. There is no rule that a page can only have one infobox, or that it must be a specific "type" of infobox. You use the infobox that provides the most pertinent information about the topic. In the general question of DCPI verses DCP: Is there reliable secondary sourcing that warrants (for notability) that DCP have a separate article? If not, then it's perfectly fine for the little sourcing that exists to be used to cover the topic at DCPI, which is clearly related as the current parent company (and/or successor). And it's ok to have a second infobox to discuss that predecessor entity. -- ferret (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. I was always under the assumption that an article can only have one Infobox. From what I can see with the official press releases, DCPI made Disney Consumer Products and Disney Interactive as divisions after the merger. Problem is, there's no citation about Disney Consumer Products still existing as a legal entity ever since Disney Interactive and Disney Interactive Studios dissolved as legal entities, but I suppose I can find that out through extensive research. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit[edit]

Why did you remove my entry on the PCMasterRace subreddit. It has contributed greatly to the resubmergence of PC gaming imo Infospazm (talk) 02:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Infospazm (talk) 02:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Infospazm: Hi, your edit to PC game was removed because it was unnecessary or undue in the article. As big as they are, PCMR haven't contributed that much to the gaming society, it'd be safe to say that the average gamer, leave-alone reader, would care about a subreddit based around PC gaming. This is also why we don't mention /r/pcgaming, /r/gaming, etc. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

How do I delete entries? Infospazm (talk) 02:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Anarchyte covered this pretty well. Social sites like subreddits generally don't have nearly enough influence or coverage to be worth mentioning, let alone in the lead and with grand claims that they saved PC gaming. -- ferret (talk) 11:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

A merge[edit]

This article: Let's Move! Flash Workout has a merge proposal since 2015. I think it should be merged with Let's Move!. How do we or I go forward with this since it's been so long? Thanks! --Jennica / talk 09:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jennica: Not too big of a deal. Just add a subsection to Let's Move! for "Flash Workout" (Maybe under Physical Activity section), with the content from that article. Trim it down a bit for things that are already covered in the primary article. Then redirect the Flash Workout article to that section. No admin action needed here, you can boldly do it since no one has contested the idea of a merger in so long. -- ferret (talk) 11:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll do it a little later :) --Jennica / talk 11:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Usernamekiran#Crowdfunding[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Usernamekiran#Crowdfunding. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

.hack//GU[edit]

If you have the time, could you help discuss Talk:.hack//G.U.. You previously dealt with the undiscussed split, I think you should be involved in the discussion. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q2 2017[edit]

Gamepad.svg

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 10, No. 1 — 2nd Quarter, 2017
Fairytale left.png Previous issue | Index | Next issue Fairytale right.png

Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2017, the project has:


Content


To opt-out or sign up to receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to update the distribution list.
(Delivered 14:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC))

List of highest funded crowdfunding projects[edit]

Requesting a bit of admin intervention as the scam-promoters are reverting edits which remove blockchain entries, contrary to consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.16.247.184 (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

User:ClassicOnAStick[edit]

Hi,

Back in June, you gave this user a fairly stern warning. And since then, this user someone recently reported them to WP:AIV for their actions. Since this is likely not obvious vandalism, and WP:AIV may not be the correct venue to report this user at. Would you mind taking a look into this user's edits. Since you warned them before, you may have an idea of what the issues/problems may be. Thanks. 116.199.251.222 (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

While I have reverted other edits by the user recently, my warning was particular to misuse of infobox company fields type, parent and owner. As far as I can tell, the user has not made those types of edits since my warning. The user thanked one of my reverts after my last warning, and I consider that acknowledgement that they have read the warnings. A lot of this editor's edits end up reverted but many of them stick. If you feel the user needs a deeper review as being a net negative, you might try ANI? @Lordtobi: this is in response to your AIV posting it seems. -- ferret (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Truly, I have reverted this user too often already, and that over a span of months, if not years. As the user is reluctant to any kind of communication, and as they should by now be aware of the issues produced through their edits (unsourced content, removal of sourced content, not using edit summary, ever!), you would expect the situation to cool down, however, they still refuse to properly part-take in the community or consider their own edits in regards to previous reverions on oh so many cases. I sought analysis by an administrator over on AIV, who then only pointed out that they didn't receive stale warnings in a longer period of time; I feel that this is the result of editor acknowledging that the user has been here for a while and attempt a discussion instead of warning the user, which has failed every time since 2014. For that particular reason, and becaue I was re-awared of this user today, reverting faulty edits on at least 15 pages (just today!), I took to giving them warnings, in three occasions of unsourced additions, where appropriate in the hope that it works as a wake-up call, though I did not want to reach a level 4 warning yet to not make it feel like gunpoint. It might not be the best option, but seeing massive failure in communication, it might be the only one at current state, so let's just hope that realize their disruptive behaviour and cease such edits in the future, or at least in the masses as it is currently. Lordtobi () 20:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

WPVG ratings in Wikidata[edit]

WPVG is one of the more advanced parts of enwp for Wikidata integration thanks to you and @Izno. Before I raise it with the project, I wanted to ask both of your opinions on the possibility of moving the project's ratings to Wikidata. Wikidata appears to be better equipped to handle intersections and list generation, whereas our whole talk page-based tagging system and reliance on quality-based categories seems like a hack in comparison. Though phasing out the latter is a long ways off, the start would be using Wikidata to store and change quality/importance data for the project, no? Is this something you feel might be a good idea, and would you be interested in working on it? czar 20:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good fit for Wikidata. Essentially, we would not be storing information about the topic, but on enwiki's article of the topic. I'm not nearly as familiar with Wikidata data's policies as Izno, but this strikes me as something they would be against. In particular though, since the quality ratings are completely specific to enwiki, I'm not sure there's any value to the rest of the wikipedia world. Wikidata does have markers for FA and GA in the site links area, but I don't believe it's constructed to handle anything else. I'm also not entirely sure it gains anything. We set quality/importance in a template, or set it in Wikidata, it's still something we set, case by case, item by item. The only advantage would be the ability (presumably) to run queries on Wikidata. -- ferret (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
@Czar: Wikidata has already rejected storing this information there, as it's too project-specific. The way quality would be done is with the d:Help:Badges system as ferret notes, which presently supports some limited quality ratings. I don't remember/really know how many teeth were pulled for badges. I have no idea how priority would be done except with new properties. (Statements are not for metadata but for the item topic itself, as much as possible, so management of priority would certainly be rejected regardless of the overall rejection. Additionally, priority suffers from the even-worse problem of being WikiProject and not simply project-specific.)
On this topic, you will probably be interested in the thread at WT:WikiProject Council/Archive_22#Overhaul of article assessments and especially its subsection at WT:WikiProject Council/Archive_22#Some relevant technical changes in the pipeline regarding the PageAssessments extension. I don't know where that work is at in implementation but I do believe some limited functionality is live now. There is highly-related work being done by the Wikidata team to support Structured Data at Wikimedia Commons with mediawikiwiki:Multi-Content Revisions which PageAssessments will undoubtedly use at some point.
Regarding queries today, the Wikidata team recently made the Mediawiki databases available in their query engine in a very limited capacity. I don't know enough about the capabilities there. Review d:WD:Project_chat/Archive/2017/06#Mediawiki_API_Service_for_WDQS and if you think that's something to start with today, go bug them some on d:WD:PC, d:WD:RAQ, or d:WD:DEV. Otherwise, you might go chat with Magnus Manske to see if WP:Petscan can do queries and intersections today. --Izno (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. PageAssessments looks useful, though it appears to be down right now. I'll keep on it. (Also I still don't quite understand why it was better to create a separate database structure than to work with Wikidata, but it looks like progress has already been made in the other direction.) czar 20:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
@Czar: I just used Special:PageAssessments and it worked fine. Your mileage may apparently vary. :D
Some of it is sound UI design IMO: We should try to make the changes closest to where they are relevant. In this case, quality and priority assessments are most-relevant to the wikis making them.
The rest of it is political or socio-technical: Wiki users don't like using Wikidata. Some of that is: different (but not really) sourcing requirements; editing experience is unfamiliar and they aren't willing to learn (not everyone is a digital native or uses software regularly enough); they just don't want to deal with going to a different wiki than their home wiki.; they don't like having to stay off their home wiki to watch for vandalism (or good changes); those users believe it's additional work to add information to Wikidata. There might be others.
Some of both of the above design requirements could be fixed with gadgets or whatnot, but then a) you disenfranchise some editors who don't have access to Javascript and b) you have to develop certain software which may not be in your core set of functionality. (Wikidata team also has project milestones and the like because of how much of their money comes from external donors directly.) MCR is a big deal in this regard because it enables technology like Structured Commons Metadata... but perhaps I speak too long on the topic. In the end, I happen to believe it's the right decision to put this stuff on the wikis rather than on Wikidata (and you can probably dig for my opposition on Wikidata about hosting project-specific information there :D). --Izno (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

"The"[edit]

Hello, ferret. So should I remove "the" from PlayStation 3/4 game articles? Because Favre1fan93 again added "the" in other articles. Pure conSouls (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Pure conSouls: Your edits are currently be discussed at WT:VG. -- ferret (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Capcom page[edit]

Hello, sir. I was editing this page and was in the process of straightening out the entire List of Capcom games section. I left them unsourced because I was planning to do that afterwards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Capcom_games:_0%E2%80%93D

Lacon432 (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Lacon432: This was my mistake, I edited the wrong version. I meant to remove only a single entry entered by an IP. -- ferret (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks. I undid the page back to my version if you want to re-edit it. Lacon432 (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Remind me again...[edit]

...We're on board the PapiDimmi crazy train to nowhere again... why? [1]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talkcontribs) 17:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@EEng: Attempting to avoid wheel warring with MSGJ, see User_talk:MSGJ#PapiDimmi. -- ferret (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Don't go on what I say, but my guess is that extending another admin's block wouldn't be ww'ing. (If A blocked indef then reduced it to a week, and then B changed it back to indef, that might be different.) But we've waited this long -- what's one more round? But please, let this be the last reprieve. There's a certain breed of editor with a talent for dragging out the inevitable via pleas of naivete. EEng 20:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Talkback: Sb2001[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Ferret. You have new messages at Sb2001's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sb2001 talk page 18:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Ferret. You have new messages at Sb2001's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sb2001 talk page 18:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Did anyone mention that there are new messages at Sb2001's talk page? EEng 19:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Alright, User:EEng! They were two separate messages. –Sb2001 talk page 21:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

About FIFA 18[edit]

HEY Ferret , why u reverted my 2 edits in the article of FIFA 18 . I know some of the hyperlinks I added r unecessary , but most of them aren't . Answer plz !! TDLWH (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

TDLWH Reading WP:OVERLINK, as ferret mentioned in his edit summary, should clear up your questions on that. Short version - you don't link to the same article repeatedly, and you don't link to basic concepts (like September - most people know what that is. You don't need to link to that. It won't be of use to most readers.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey :Sergecross73 I didn't ask u, I asked Ferret , and I am sure he has a mouth and tongue so he can speak . So plz don't speak instead him , OK ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDLWH (talkcontribs) 15:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Ferret and I often field questions posted on each other's talk pages. It's a pretty common occurrence on Wikipedia between editors who tend to work together. I'll gladly let you talk to him about it, but he's just going to say the exact same thing I told you (...which was the exact same thing he already told you.) Best of luck learning the basics. I'll leave you be. Sergecross73 msg me 15:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Serge already covered it, but I think my edit note was pretty clear explanation on it's own. -- ferret (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Quistion please ?[edit]

Hi Ferret , i have a small quistion . If i have written an article in my draft , who will check it and put it with other articles of Wikipedia , and when ? . Answer plz ?? ^_^ TDLWH (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@TDLWH: Check out WP:AFC. Editors who work in AFC will review drafts that have been submitted to be created. If the draft is good to go, they will move it to be an article. If there are issues, they will leave a message explaining what needs to be improved before the article can be accepted. -- ferret (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Re: Nintendo DS family[edit]

Sometimes when I've done it like that, the admin did both the deletion and move. Thought that was going to happen... ViperSnake151  Talk  00:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@ViperSnake151: No problem, wasn't sure if something was missed or if I misread the intent. The IP's edits drew my eye to it. -- ferret (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Clarity on sourcing[edit]

Hello again. I need some clarification on how the policy on YouTube sourcing works, as I am currently questioning this diff on Sonic Forces. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jd02022092: It's important to view Youtube not as a source itself, but as simply a host for sources. What must be evaluated is the channel that posted the video. In this case, it's an official and verified channel for the Sonic franchise. It is a primary source, which means apply the usual care when writing about primary sources, but it is not inherently unreliable. As a similar example, if the official Nintendo channel on Youtube announces a new game and release date, that is a valid source for that information. -- ferret (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Can you also look at Splatoon 2? IPs and users keep adding additional credits to the infobox and sourcing a YouTube video which I also question whether it can be used. One user mentioned spoilers too. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
@Jd02022092: The game itself and it's credits are a primary source. The Youtube itself isn't being used as a source so much as a way to show you the credits. For the directors, this was probably fine. However, for composer, adding just 2 of the 6 people listed for sound is inappropriate (Why stop at those 2?). Either way, per infobox documentation, we only list lead/director/senior type positions. Toru Minegishi is sourced as sound director, so the others shouldn't be listed. -- ferret (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Another conflict of interest[edit]

This page popped up in new page creations and it is... odd looking. I've never seen a page like this. Laura Jackson (TV presenter). The person appears to be editing her own article and last Thursday was notified and sort of warned about it. What is the next step since they ignored those warnings? --Jennica / talk 10:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, do you think Tarantula (Dylan book) should be moved to Tarantula (book)? The book one is a redirect I cannot move it. --Jennica / talk 13:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Jimfbleak has deleted the article. If the user starts recreating it or continues, feel free to let me know. As for Tarantula (book), it appears to have been moved to "(Dylan book)" under the logic that Tarantula (novel) is also a book. They were trying to be more specific with the disamb. -- ferret (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks ferret; Jennica FWIW, I've also nominated the image for speedy deletion. It's attributed to the Sunday Times and therefore won't be free to use Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

About PES 18 talk page .[edit]

I am sorry about my discussion in Pro Evolution Soccer 2018 talk page . I think I am the most reverted editor in the English Wikipedia ^_^ TDLWH (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hardly that. Just make sure you read the edit notes, most of us will explain why and you'll gain more knowledge on wikipedia editing. You're not causing any trouble, it's not like you're vandalizing articles. -- ferret (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA[edit]

New Zealand TW-17.svg Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)