User talk:SharkD

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

Category:GrimE games[edit]

Category:GrimE games, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Source engine games[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Source engine games has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Vaypertrail (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Left2[edit]

Template:Left2 has been nominated for merging with Template:Left. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Unity engine games[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Unity engine games has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Soetermans. T / C 14:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Gamebryo games[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Gamebryo games has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Soetermans. T / C 10:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Vgrpg-chrono-2[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Vgrpg-chrono-2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Soetermans. T / C 14:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Fallout (series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Sierra Nevada
Fallout 3 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Sierra Nevada

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Top lists scope[edit]

Hey, are we interested in user-based top lists? For example Retro Gamer has Top 100 in #8, #9, but they are based on user votes. To quote, "The suspense is over. We can reveal what you, the Retro Gamer readers, have voted your favourite 50 games." —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Hellknowz: If Retro Gamer is reliable, then yes. 13:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
What about the existing entries in the list that aren't reliable? (P.S. Since you didn't sign, the ping didn't work.) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
@Hellknowz: I guess they can be removed/ignored, but I still find them interesting. SharkD  Talk  13:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year[edit]

Happy New Year .jpg
Happy New Year!
Hello SharkD:

Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters.

North America1000 12:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message
Thank you! SharkD  Talk  05:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Our perspective on review aggregators[edit]

Hey there,

I'm Matthew Enthoven, CEO of OpenCritic.com. We've been following the review aggregator discussion you started, but I felt like it'd be inappropriate for us to weigh in there given the obvious conflict of interest. However, we did want to mention some of the points that we think about when it comes to aggregators, for whatever they're worth.

First, one thing that's concerned us from the conversation is the focus only on the score. While Wikipedia may frequently reference scores alone, we feel like aggregators have so much more potential. Available data is one area - OpenCritic is the only review aggregator for video games that correctly cites the author and the publication that submitted the review. We also supply infographics for game reviews and are continuing to develop there. We're the only aggregator that shows calculated standard deviation, and the only aggregator in games that displays and uses non-scoring reviews (such as Kotaku, Eurogamer, etc.) when calculating the % recommended. We're the only aggregator that shows the overall distribution of review scores, and we highlight where each game lies (ex: "The Witcher 3 is in the top 0.9% of games on OpenCritic"). We're also the only aggregator that lets gamers pick-and-chose their own trusted publications, creating a personalized and individual score. The reason I mention all this is just to say that we don't think about review aggregation as "boiling down all the reviews to a single number" - we think about review aggregation as helping provide consumers with as much information as possible when considering a purchase decision. To us, that means more than just the number - review aggregation is an experience, and we hope that we're judged, at least partially, on that experience too.

Second, we do strongly agree with the "kingmaker" problem in this area. For us, it's the greatest Catch-22: you can't become an authority without being referenced, but you only get referenced if you are an authority. Part of why we chose to maintain total transparency was to lower the bar for "being an authority." We feel that we have nothing to prove as all of our data, processes, decisions, and calculations are public. Even the "decision" of which publications are included on OpenCritic is based on a set of publicly verifiable metrics. Yet still, we struggle with getting over the "authority" hump. Small references from Escapist, Examiner (blacklisted on Wikipedia), Forbes, Lazygamer, and others help tremendously, but the "authority" benchmark remains far away (and rightfully so). I've raised this issue in Wikipedia discussions in the past, but still haven't received a firm answer: what exactly is the "authority" bar? How does one objectively decide what is an authority, and what isn't? Knowing this bar would help us tremendously. One of our pillars is to be "the source of the critical reception of video games," and thus Wikipedia is an important milestone to that end.

Third, we're concerned about the bar of "significantly different data." OpenCritic shares about 50% of its publications with Metacritic. Most of our games are within a couple points of the Metacritic average. Major titles are usually extremely close (within 1 or 2 points). However, we feel like it's worth mentioning that while the majority of scores are very close, the most interesting ones are the ones that aren't close. While those occurrences are rare (our estimates put it around 10-20% of games), we feel like they're worth highlighting. For a cross-platform title, Metacritic lists 3 or more different scores, one for each platform, and Wikipedia uses the platform that received the most reviews. However, OpenCritic averages across all platforms. What's interesting is when these different methods arrive at different conclusions, and we believe that highlighting that difference is beneficial to users when it occurs. But that also means that highlighting the lack of a difference is equally important, when two different processes and data sets arrived at a similar conclusion. Lastly, we just want to mention that even a few points difference has huge ramifications: going from 79 to 82 moves your ranking from the top 27.5% to the top 15.4%. So while 3 points might not look like much, it's a pretty massive score difference.

Anyways, these are just some things to keep in mind. OpenCritic will hit 100 publications over our deploy tonight, and with it come personal pages for each individual critic. We're creating the ability for users to favorite and subscribe to their favorite critics and publications, and will shortly after be creating user reviews. We're also considering overhauling our scoring system to something similar to Rotten Tomatoes and % recommended, but that's further out.

Thanks for sparking the discussion, and we'll be following it.

Cheers,

Matthew

MattEnth (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

!!! template[edit]

Hi SharkD,

I'm going through video game templates, and I noticed that you created {{E&}}. It's categorized as a WP:VG template, but I can't seem to figure out where it links to or what does. --Soetermans. T / C 14:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Soetermans: It is used on this project page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. SharkD  Talk  02:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

OpenCritic Updates?[edit]

Hey SharkD,

Disclosure in case you don't remember me: I'm Matthew Enthoven, one of the founders of OpenCritic.

We're still trying to figure out ways to make strides when it comes to Wikipedia and wanted to update with some of our progress. Previous conversations seemed to mostly conclude "too soon" and that we weren't "enough of a source in the industry." We wanted to continue to challenge that and get more feedback. Since the start of this year, we've added numerous features and seen our presence as an authority rising, so we thought it'd be a good time to ask again "what is it that you guys look for?"

We've added critic pages, with over 350 critics that have signed up and customized their page. To this day, we are the only aggregator that correctly attributes reviews to their author in addition to their publication.

We also added support for embeddable scores, which are now being used by The Escapist (see bottom of article) and Lazygamer. Websites such as Cubed3 and DarkZero now link to us in their footers, and PlayStation Universe lists us on their reviews.

We've been used as a source by Gamasutra (second paragraph), GeForce/Nvidia (see last paragraph), Examiner, Forbes, and others. We've also been added to Wikipedia Portugal on many pages. In the community, we're an officially sanctioned aggregator by the PS4 subreddit, and have been used across several reddit threads, often times as the only aggregator listed now. Metacritic has even made significant score mistakes, and a few of our users noticed.

We passed 100 publications included, and added word clouds that highlight key features and themes of reviews. We continue to see more and more traction across the board. We're adding 3DS and Vita titles now, with Fire Emblem Fates' review embargo already posted. We're the only aggregator that includes publications such as Eurogamer, AngryCentaurGaming, GameXplain, and TotalBiscuit, and we're the only aggregator that maintains the original score format. We also report on the percentage of critics that recommend the title, a statistic that allows us to include non-numeric publications.

We strongly believe that we are the fastest and most reliable aggregator. We are consistently faster than Metacritic, as several critics have noticed. We've invested heavily in our technology and our presentation, and believe strongly that, while we draw on the same data as Metacritic, we offer a more complete and informed picture fo a title. As we wrap up our next few features, we're hoping to improve and, well...

The reason I'm writing is: We really want to know what you guys are looking for. This isn't a "please put us on Wikipedia" type thing: we're young gamers and don't really consider Wikipedia readers to be our demographic, and as we have no advertising, they'd be revenue-negative anyway. Instead, we're just looking for feedback. We consider you, as a video game editor, to be an intellectual in the industry that we want to support and thrive in. So we want to know - what do you look for when evaluating OpenCritic as an "industry source"? What are the variables/factors? What are the things we can improve?

We're always on the lookout for ideas, and as we wrap up our next few features, we want to get your thoughts and opinions.

Sincerely, MattEnth (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)