User talk:Ferret/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

PunkBuster - About policy

Hello,

I am sending you this message about the PunkBuster page. I noticed that you have removed (two times) the paragraph about the privacy warning that I made / translated from the French Wikipedia's page, also you said "Different Wikis have different policies" (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/PunkBuster)

I would like you to show me the text indicating the "mismatch" between my text and the English Wikipedia policy. Without that, I'll have to rewrite this paragraph.

I consider it very important and necessary to include the privacy warning, while remaining neutral, of course.

Thank you in advance, respecting your work.

92.169.224.218 (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The relevant policies on enwiki are verifiability and reliable sources. This section of text is completely unsourced, and the importance of it is not highlighted by any reliable sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a consumer warning agency, and unless there's some notable controversy about Punkbuster's terms of service, it isn't Wikipedia's job to read and highlight aspects of it for users. If a reliable source has brought the issue up, then we can possibly include it. However, other Wiki projects are considered unreliable sources by default, as anyone can edit them. To include this without any sources or to claim it holds importance would be original research. -- ferret (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Ferret is correct, the content isn't sourced as being an particularly important aspect of the subject, and its really not appropriate for an encyclopedia article to be listeing off privacy warnings, that's not generally in an encyclopedia's scope. Also, for what it's worth, its not so much that different regions of Wiki's have different policies, as much as some have different interpretations of it, or are more or less strict in enforcing its rules. The English one is rather active in enforcing, especially in areas of media and entertainment, which is probably why its more proactively being removed here. The argument is basically, just because the French Wikipedia hasn't removed it, doesn't make it right. It all honesty, it probably shouldn't be there either. Sergecross73 msg me 13:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to answer. About the source, indeed, I had not noticed, I wrote it... But i probably made a formating error. Here is the link: http://www.evenbalance.com/troubleticket/

I think it is necessary to talk about the "software licence agreement" of this anti-cheat software, given the importance that this software can do to our computers. Maybe just a simple link to the source about the software licence agreement in this case, clearly and neutrally. I thought it was a good idea, because i the text is difficult to find, even on their official website !

Anyway, so even if we add the source about privacy, will it be removed ? Thank you in advance again. 92.169.224.218 (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The link above is a primary source. It verifies that the EULA exists, but does not allow us to make commentary on it. Synthesis of primary sources is original research. You would need to find a secondary reliable source that has commented on the EULA as being note-worthy in some way. -- ferret (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Super NES technical specifications

Hey, I noticed you boldly removed most of the technical specifications... BUT there is a problem, the Technical Specifications link redirects back to the same section on the page and not a different page with the actual technical specifications such as the Audio/Video chips.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.49.250 (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2016‎ (UTC)

Recently, a couple months later after I removed the technical specifications from the main article, the sub-article was redirected due to poor sourcing. The sourcing for these details did not mean Wikipedia's guidelines. -- ferret (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2016

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 9, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2016
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2016, the project has:

• 204 Featured Articles
• 71 Featured Lists
• 10 Featured Topics
• 1 Featured Portals

• 27 Featured Pictures
• 1019 Good Articles
• 19 Good Topics

---

Content

• Changes to Featured and Good content
• News items and announcements

• WP:VG Talk Page Digest
• Feature: Mentem Mortalia Tangunt - WP:VG and Vernal Passages

---

Project Navigation

• VG Project Main pages

  • Main project – talk
  • Project category – talk
  • Portal – talk

  VG Project Departments

  • Assessment – talk
  • Cleanup – talk
  • Peer review – talk

   

  • Reference library – talk
  • Newsletter – talk
  • Video game images – talk

To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding this edit

That wasn't a really valid reason to revert, in my opinion. Encyclopedias should have in-depth content, and the details that I added were perfectly acceptable. Also, please leave a message on my talk page when you feel I've done something "wrong", instead of me uncovering the revert by chance when re-reading the article. AgrAVE BAnks 01:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - You should probably look over WP:GAMECRUFT further - lists like this isn't the type of thing we tend to put on Wikipedia. Ferret's revert was definitely valid. Sergecross73 msg me 01:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

It's perfectly acceptable not to leave a message on your talk page. I left a pretty clear edit note. If you disagreed, that's fine, but it's a WP:VG project guideline. I hope you take the time to read the guideline, at WP:VGSCOPE, and also swing by WP:VG for more information on the video game project here on Wikipedia. -- ferret (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Remember that I'm fairly new here and don't know every single policy. Also, I still think that what I added is good content expansion, because it allows readers to visualize the game more. AgrAVE BAnks 01:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate that you're new, and left you a welcome message with information on the VG project. Just keep in mind that editors won't always realize you're new or check your contribution history before taking an action or replying. As for detailed information like themes, map lists, character lists, etc... Wikipedia strikes to be a general encyclopedia. The more detailed information on how to play a particular game or listing items, themes, maps, etc, is typically viewed as better suited for Wikia. -- ferret (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

PS1 wobble

Hello,

I have a reliable source about the wobble. other one is an invalid source.

80.184.119.3 (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Could you please link the source to me? -- ferret (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind I see it. I've filled out the full citation. -- ferret (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

MLB The Show 16

hello, my name is LJ Kurek. Do you know anyone that likes MLB The Show 16? I am trying to find some people to help edit the page. Thanks. --LJEnglish (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, can't say I have any particular interest in it. -- ferret (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay! Thanks for the comment back. --LJEnglish (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Complaint

I originally saw Take-Two Interactive on the owners section of Visual Concepts and 2K Play. I was not putting false data. -Thethomster2001

I did not suggest you put false data, only wanted to inform you about how the Infobox should be populated. The owner field is used to indicate the ownership percentages of a publicly held company. These are not publicly held companies, they are wholly owned subsidiaries of Take-Two. Take-Two therefore belongs in the parent field. The publishing label, 2K, does not own them. -- ferret (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Reception chart

Hey. I see that you see things from my point of view regarding this. That person has been making that same unproductive change for some reason at other articles, including EA Sports UFC 2 and Unravel (video game). If you care and since you appear to agree with me, would you mind backing me up in saying that those charts the IP is adding are worse than the widely used ones? I started a section at Talk:EA Sports UFC 2. If you would rather not get involved (would be a good call as I myself despise these matters), then just ignore this. —DangerousJXD (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@DangerousJXD: Unfortunately, you're just going to have to revert him when he comes through. He hops IPs and refuses to discuss issues on the article talk page OR his talk page. Warnings and messages explaining policy are removed without comment. He's been blocked multiple times for reverting editors who enforce WP:VGSCOPE, WP:VGAGG and even Template:Infobox video game doc. It's been a long term issue. His edits are essentially good faith but his refusal to honor project policies makes it disruptive. The best I can say is that if you revert him, he'll either edit war (And get blocked) or honor the policy (I.e. add new sources without re-introducing the reverted portion). @Sergecross73 has had to block him multiple times. -- ferret (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I have encountered another user who likes actively butchering reception sections. I'm done now. No point in trying to clean up this mess. No point in trying to talk to a silent IP. I'm done. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@DangerousJXD: I'd assume a little good faith on the part of Angeldeb82, as I'm confident they have nothing to do with the IP. (See the project talk section they made at WT:VG) As for the IP, some of us have been dealing with him for well over a year. It's just part of Wikipedia that we have to deal with IPs that don't follow guidelines or policy. -- ferret (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

PlayStation 2

I was trying to use the same release date system as the one on the PlayStation Vita infobox (three main regions, with a note for the rest). This is also not unnecessary detail, but quite the opposite, by listing other regions in that note. I know it is unsourced but those dates were on this page for a long time, and got them again from an old revision. The PS2 articles in other languages, e.g. the Portuguese or Korean, list those dates I put in (e.g. Dec 23, 2003 for China). It must be accurate. --G&CP (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@G&CP: Those dates have been removed multiple times as unsourced. I'm not sure why the fact that they were in an old revision would mean that it's ok to add them back. We're on enwiki, and each Wiki project (different languages) have their own policies. The relevant policy here on enwiki is Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you can find sources for these dates, great. But if not, they should not be added to the article. -- ferret (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Ferret. Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 17:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Call of Duty: World at War

Sorry about my revert; I didn't realise that the DS and PS2 versions of World at War have their own separate articles. -- Hounder4 19:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I almost reverted it myself at first glance. -- ferret (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry

Big big sorry for that revert on Doom (2016 video game), I was using a tool which reverted that :( hope you understand!! Pranish|^Message 17:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Pranish.rock: No problem, accidental reverts happen. :) -- ferret (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare

On 21 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the announcement trailer for Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare received over two million dislikes and is the second most disliked video on YouTube? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Working on a review update

Speaking of the review box, I've got my own stuff in the works.

• Module:Video game reviews/sandbox
• Template:Video game reviews/testcases#More
• Module:Video game reviews/data/sandbox

But as you can see its broken. My skills in Lua are pretty much a joke, could you help me a bit? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Zero Serenity: Lay out for me what you're going for and I can take a look. I'm a programmer by trade, though Lua is not really my forte. Getting there though. -- ferret (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The testcase error you had is fixed here: Diff. The new parts table you had made was not being returned by the module. -- ferret (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Lua isn't my forte either! We're in the same damned boat here. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 01:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Zero Serenity: Are you still working on this effort? I will be looking to use the sandboxes shortly for a different update to this template. -- ferret (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I've iced it for the moment as my schedule has become rather booked. Can you dump it into my own box when you're ready to start updating? Thanks. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 19:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Zero Serenity: Your copy is in this diff. -- ferret (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Grit

The entry in List of game engines is a "notable" game engine. If you were to apply your same logic to the rest of the entries on the page, I suggest you remove about half of them as none of these other engines are any more "notable". You are using non-objective, non-quantifiable tests and criteria to basically allow yourself to wantonly remove entries at your whim. Basically, its what you decide it is according to your personal preference. There doesnt seem to be any quantifiable test on what is "notable". Evidence from its own community such as number of message board entries suggests it is likely more heavily used than many of your other entries. In fact, there is quantifiable evidence that Grit is a well established product, from its own source repository one can measure the minimum number of years it has been developed, do a source line count, and there is information and testability of the fact it is a functional product. So we have a baseless, non quantifiable, unscientific criteria being used to delete entries according to the personal bias of the editor. Millueradfa (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) When he says "notable", he's (assumably) referring to the fact that all the entries on the list have their own separate Wikipedia article. That's a common requirement for adding entries to a list, especially something like this, where it would be extremely easy to populate it all sorts of obscure, non-noteworthy engines rather quickly. And yes, notable does have a standard on Wikipedia, its called the WP:GNG. So in short, if you created an article for the engine, and it met the WP:GNG and doesn't get deleted, then it would be warranted to add it to the list. Otherwise, ferret is probably in the right here. Sergecross73 msg me 13:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Serge nailed it. Notable in this case refers to the Wikipedia policy on notability. Lists are not meant to just contain external links to anything out on the internet. Every engine currently on that list has an article here on Wikipedia and is supported by reliable secondary sources that establish (in Wikipedia term's) notability. -- ferret (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Warcraft (film)

Only read now, but those reviews are from viewers right, I am not certain whether that would count as an official review. Fel is not explained anywhere else, I thought about adding it as fel spell/magic but that might create confusion with Medivh's magic- what are your thoughts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.99.37.40 (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2016‎ (UTC)

(talk page stalker) While it is good to strive to explain all concepts to the reader - articles are meant to be written for general audiences who can understand everything without having any prior on the subject - at the same time, Wikipedia doesn't wiki-link to other websites in the body of an article like that. You should probably come up with a different way of solving that issue. Sergecross73 msg me 17:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The reviews on Rotten Tomato and Metacritic are the critic reviews, not the user reviews. The user reviews are actually somewhat better than the critic reviews, but still considered negative by both aggregators. Both aggregators are commonly used for this purpose and considered reliable. Regarding the "fel infusion", It would be more appropriate to remove the word "fel" and replace with a generic term like "magical energy", that average readers would understand. Yes, it's not the strict in-universe term, but its better to avoid in-universe anyways. As Serge mentioned and I left on your talk page, in-line external lines like this are frowned upon and generally inappropriate. On top of that Wikia sites are considered inherently unreliable. -- ferret (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker), is going a bit far when attempted to discuss. Anyhow - how would you solve the issue fel is used in between one or two times, so removing it completely might be problematic because there seems to be two entities of magic. I saw the negative and positive reviews by critics and the film just released I think it too early to put out a verdict and would be bad practice to put it as negative now, maybe one month interval might help viewers to reach a consensus.-this is just a suggestion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.99.37.40 (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2016‎ (UTC)

On the first mention, I would say something like "fel energy, a type of unholy magic" and that should suffice for the general reader. As for the reviews, articles aren't permanent. The reviews are negative right now, and we have reliable sources to back that. If they become mixed or positive, we'll update then. -- ferret (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding - "(talk page stalker)" is actually reference to me, not you. A talk page stalker is a Wikipedia term for someone who joins discussions on someone else's talk page in efforts to help out. Ferret and I commonly answer requests/questions on each others talk page is all. Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.99.37.40 (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

MOBA genre needs to be redefined, its not subgenre of RTS anymore

I added what information is missling in MOBA discussion page, as reply to your message. --Echoblu (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

About the Parent field

Alright read it, thanks for the acknowledgement still getting use to one or two little things.In future I might add a parent field after the owner field.once again Thanks. BBMatBlood (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@BBMatBlood: The owner field is to show the ownership percentages of a private company. In the case of game studios that are subsidiaries, it is not appropriate as they are wholly owned by their parent. The type would be subsidiary, and the parent company that owns them should be listed in the parent field. The owner field should be omitted entirely. -- ferret (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Game Engine List - Atomic Game Engine entry

Hello! I've attempted adding the Atomic Game Engine to the Game Engine List page. The Atomic Game Engine is an MIT licensed engine that runs on Windows, Mac, Linux, Android, iOS, and WebGL. I understand that we need more notability, though please don't consider sharing valuable technology with the world spam :) If you have advice on how we can improve notability, that would be welcome. In the meantime, I will work on generating an acceptable Wikipedia page for the engine once notability requirements are met, thank you! :)

Laraenge (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Laraenge: You've attempted the add the engine to the list four times, and its the only edits you've made, so it does seem a little promotional. If you can get your draft completed and accepted, that will establish notability, and I'll be glad to see it on the list. But right now, please leave it off the list. While working on the draft, make sure you read the notability guidelines at WP:N and about veritibility at WP:V. These are core Wikipedia processes. Notability is established through reliable secondary sources that discuss the topic in-depth (I.e. not just a passing mention). See WP:RS for information about reliable sources. Although more focused on video games themselves, the list of reliable sources at WP:VG/RS may be a good starting point. There is a custom google search linked there that searches only the vetted reliable sources relating to video games. Please also read WP:REFUND/G13. This page describes how to recover the draft you had previously worked, which has since been deleted as abandoned as no one was working on it for a long time. -- ferret (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

PS2 Online

"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."

I guess my point was that both playstation2.onlineconsoles.com and ps2onlinegaming.com 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 ps2onlinegaming.com, 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 65.96.204.60 (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

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)

Okay I can copy paste us over there then. I have read the articles you have linked. If I understand correctly, the standards for the site seem to be high, and quite a few pages on wikipedia I believe do not follow these guidelines. That being said I'd rather those pages remain as they are, rather than change them all over something like this. Hopefully there is a way to state the truth which is also verifiable within the guidelines of the website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.114.25.254 (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Battlefield 4 sales / VGchartz

Hello,

I apologise for the wrong reference ^^. But the previous figure is without a single reference either so I wanted to correct it. But it seems there's only the same one as later in the article (Part sales), with only 7 million (14 million seems more likely, no? I don't have the game so ...)

Anyway, thank you for your work here and have a nice week-end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Touhara (talk • contribs) 01:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Touhara: No problem. Visit WP:VG/RS, it has a list of video game related sources that are vetted as reliable. There's also a link to a custom google search that will only return results from those sites. You may be able to find a source that way. -- ferret (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Why do you keep marking me as vandalism and saying I don't provide sources in regards to Critical Response?

The article's Critical Response section talks exclusively about the critics response to the movie at both Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes. I want to include the equally as important if not more important general audience consensus from both of the same sources. I have provided links to the sources which are already cited as good sources. Can you please explain to me why you are censoring my update? It has valuable information and good sources.

Again you claim it's "Vandalism" for not "citing a reliable source." This simply isn't true and you are being unfair and inaccurate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.197.204 (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2016‎ (UTC)

Your edits were reverted by multiple people. In my own edit notes, I left a response telling you that this had already been discussed on the talk page and that these reviews are unsuitable per WP:USERG. You ignored the warnings and edit notes that other editors left and continued to re-add the content, which is disruptive, and that is why I gave you a final warning following the ones you already had received. Feel free to join the discussion on the talk page about user/audience reviews, but do not add the content again. -- ferret (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion on the topic. Could you kindly direct me to where this discussion is taking place? I feel it is valuable to the reader to see both what the critics consensus is as well as the general audience, especially in a situation where it differentiates so greatly - (Critics in the 2-3 range, general audience in the 8-9 range). Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are both acceptable sources but it seems disingenuous to show only half of the information from the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.197.204 (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussions are at Talk:Warcraft (film)#Critics vs Audiances and Talk:Warcraft (film)#Proposed: additional critic section. There's a few edit requests asking for it to be added as well that have been declined. Critic review scores on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are acceptable. User reviews are not, and this is the case over all of English Wikipedia, not just this article. This is a topic that comes up with many new films and video games. Again, see WP:USERG concerning Wikipedia's policy on user generated content. -- ferret (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for fixing those spelling mistakes, I don't know how I messed up the spelling of "released". Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem ;) -- ferret (talk) 12:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Coheed and Cambria

http://puu.sh/pCcEy/a7057deadd.png

http://puu.sh/pCcGq/a9c304b6c2.png

They don’t fall under those roles? Really, now?

—212.252.163.135 (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out! Just before your edits, another editor had changed the timeline and I missed it. I have restored it to the original version from May. Claudio and Travis both play rhythm and lead, with lots of dual leads. The rest of the article is in line with this, and the timeline shouldn't have been changed. -- ferret (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but isn’t it usually Claudio playing rhythm whilst Travis is lead? You can especially see this in live performances. I might be wrong, but Cobalt and Calcium agrees with this as well.

Considering Claudio’s already the lead vocalist, it’d be a lot easier for him to play rhythm most of the time (not always—especially evidently in the “Welcome Home” duet). Is there any known confirmation or source about their specific roles? If not, then for now… never mind. (And yeah, admittedly, the timeline was a bit of a mess, as accurate as it seemed to me.)

—212.252.163.135 (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Ignoring their roles for a moment, that last timeline update tried to do "too much", with triple colors and such. It made the timeline unreadable in my view. As for live performances, they so often trade off that its hard to say. Claudio plays a lot of parts while singing that I often wonder "Why is Travis strumming chords right now?". For example, Claudio plays the lead melody of Everything Evil while singing during shows, with Travis playing the chords. (At least at the last show I saw) I don't believe there's a source that really supports their roles, and while I don't have a link handy, I'm pretty sure in interviews they've always described it as both sharing the roles. -- ferret (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Battlefield 1

I'm sorry, i won't change it anymore to Frostbite 3 engine until there is a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel11221 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. -- ferret (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

BF1 did not actually make it to the most viewed list in 24 Hours. Thanks: TheMaxXHD (I'm a noob at Wikipedia so sorry if I messed up) Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20160507202205/https://www.youtube.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMaxXHD9118 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 12 May 2016‎ (UTC)

Thanks for the archive link, that helps confirm it. -- ferret (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ferret, that'd be nice if we can discuss about the particulars of your motivations for deleting my contributions on this page. First, I'd like to mention that within my sources, are not only forums but news mags about video games, and I added lemonde article as source as well. Is this sufficient ? or must we change something more, like tame the tone or something.

thanks Lightness1024 (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Lightness1024: I recommend that you use the talk page for the article, Talk:Battlefield 1. It looks like someone has already started a discussion. -- ferret (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Changes to Star Citiezen Wiki

You left "Undoing changes to lead to restore typical article guidelines for VGs." as the reason for removing my changes, which is not a valid reason. The original article before my edits, was/is inaccurate and I updated it to better reflect the current situation and remove inaccuracies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutral2006 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, following guidelines such as MOS and WP:VG/GL IS a valid reason to undo an edit, as well as your removal of sourced content, spelling and grammar issues, and including content in the lede that is not in the article body. Per WP:BRD, please discuss your changes on the talk page at Talk:Star Citizen before making them again. -- ferret (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC) .

Editing Grammar and spelling is fine, including outdated and inaccurate content is not. As per the WP:VG/GL Lead section: The name of the game in bold italics, its gameplay genre, release date, platform, and other identifying information go first. Then, a brief summary of the article. Finally, why the game is notable and important; this is the key part of the lead section, because it establishes the main idea that will be carried throughout the article. comment added by Neutral2006 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the guidelines, and you are not editing in the fashion they are meant to be followed. Again, I request that you follow WP:BRD. Your edits have been contested, now discuss them on the talk page. Please self-revert and do so. -- ferret (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I am contesting the original article, it is inaccurate, do you wish to discuss the inaccuracies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutral2006 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Ferret has some valid concerns. I personally would especially object to the external linking to the game's Kickstarter page in the opening sentence as well. We don't generally link to external websites in the article bodies like that, not to mention, it comes off as rather WP:PROMOTIONal... Wikipedia is not a way to direct people to a game's website...

Please, rather than continually reverting, people go to the article talk page, and discuss point by point, the changes you want to be made, rather than arguing through edit summaries. Ferret and other editors may be able to piece together an acceptable compromise version through this method. Sergecross73 msg me 15:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

"Star Citizen is an upcoming space sim video game for Microsoft Windows and Linux." No its only available on Windows , there is no linux version. Speculation is not validNeutral2006 (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Please, again, use the article talk page at Talk:Star Citizen. There are multiple reliable sources in the article concerning planned Linux. That's what upcoming means. -- ferret (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Its miss leading as there has been no linux version in the five years this game has been in development, and Chris roberts himself as of 31 March 2015 has stated that the Linux version might not even happen as they have had many issues. Neutral2006 (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss each individual tiny issue you have with the article here on my talk page. Please, go enumerate the issues you see, with sources to back up your claims, on the talk page of the article at Talk:Star Citizen. Please read WP:RS and see a list of vetted video game reliable sources at WP:VG/RS. There are more editors than just me watching the article. -- ferret (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

You are refusing to discuss this?Neutral2006 (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm telling you I will discuss it (Along with any other editors who want) at the article's talk page, which you are refusing to use. My talk page is not the place to discuss a content dispute at a particular article. -- ferret (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I've even started it for you now. Talk:Star Citizen#Edit dispute with Neutral2006 concerning lede contents. -- ferret (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Talk:Lego Island

Good evening. I am the boy who has been reverting that deleted content on Talk:Lego Island. I initially felt like it was being blanked for no reason, but I am happy that you put the archiving into effect. Therefore, I no longer plan on restoring the content that I have been restoring for the last couple of months. Thank you. Have a good night. 2602:306:3357:BA0:F5D4:4FFD:86C:15BF (talk) 04:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Links to edit WIkidata

Animal Farm

Author	George Orwell
Media type	Print (hardback & paperback)
Pages	92

I see that you've been looking at ways to display links to edit Wikidata from the discussions at Template talk:Video game reviews.

Nikkimaria recently pointed me to the French Wikipedia's use of a small pen icon as the link on each field, so I implemented a version of that in the calls made in Module:WikidataIB. Here's a demo of what it looks like when used in Template:Infobox book/Wikidata/Sandbox.

I thought you may want to experiment with similar devices, so I'm just drawing your attention to what's possible. The code looks like this:

local icon = " [[File:Blue pencil.svg |frameless |text-top |10px |alt=Edit this on Wikidata |link=https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/" .. thisQid .. "?uselang=" .. lang .. "#" .. propertyID .. "|Edit this on Wikidata]]"
...
return table.concat(out, ", ") .. icon

There's actually an API call for the url, but I wrote the code before I spotted the call. The caption becomes the tool-tip on a frameless image. Anyway, you'll easily find it all in the module. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Czar and Izno: What do you guys think? I can implement easily enough. I think this is more useful for the Infobox work we'll look to tackle soon but could be used for the reviews too. -- ferret (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's a bad idea, but we'd want to limit it to one instance per template (otherwise it gets obnoxious). I'd recommend either the top or bottom right corners, likely best to the right of the header. It's good that it has alt text too. Also I'd knock it down a few pixels, so the tip of the pencil is in line with the bottom of the text. That's likely text-top's fault, but I don't know my WP:EIS offhand. czar 19:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I implemented it for each field because that way it shows which values need to be edited on Wikidata and which ones are to be edited locally. To illustrate I've added |media_type= to the demo infobox. My opinion is that the functionality outweighs the obnoxiousness. YMMV.

I tried each possible alignment described in EIS, and chose text-top as the nearest to the alignment we all seem to prefer (bottom of icon with bottom of text). The actual fix would be to create a derivative of File:Blue pencil.svg that was shifted down a little. I leave that as an exercise for the reader. --RexxS (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Cube World

I kinda agree with your statement. However, I'm double checking each page in the category to make sure it truly belongs, so thanks for helping with that. Another topic I need to know: there is a certain page that I reverted out of the category a little bit ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jinn_Foo_(Fictional_Character). It looks made up and doesn't cite any sources. I marked it for deletion based of this fact. However, it was unmarked somehow. I'd like someone else to look at the page to let me know their opinion. Since your one of the more experienced editors on this category, i figured I'd ask you while I'm at it. Thanks again. Dohvahkiin (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dohvahkiin: The editor who created the page removed your CSD notice. Page creators are not suppose to do so. I restored it. I agree about this article, looks like its a hoax or some sort of fan fiction. -- ferret (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ferret:Thanks, I appreciate the help.Dohvahkiin (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Unfortunately, lack of sources is not a valid criterion for WP:CSD. I've amended the csd notice to {{db-g3}} which covers hoaxes and vandalism. Hopefully that will be prove to be appropriate as there's no trace of any "Jinn Foo" character that I've been able to find in any Assassin's Creed, let alone a "main protagonist". Should the csd be declined by someone else, you could use WP:PROD as the next step, or go straight to WP:AfD, which takes longer but will normally yield a result in these sort of cases. Enabling WP:Twinkle in Special:Preferences #mw-prefsection-gadgets (Gadgets, don't forget to Save at the bottom of the page) simplifies making these nominations a lot. Hope that helps --RexxS (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Rexx. I just undid the creator's removal of the CSD. @Dohvahkiin, I also highly recommend Twinkle, especially if you spend any time cleaning up vandalism edits. -- ferret (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• Deleted as hoax czar 20:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced Change?

Did you even look at the edit before rolling it back? I can assure you the source and number I added is going to be miles more accurate than one from an article posted the day of the games PC release... — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingKapwn (talk • contribs) 08:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, I do see the new source this time, but I still stand by the revert. SteamDB is sourcing numbers from SteamSpy. Both are considered unreliable sources for Wikipedia as they are not hard sale numbers, simply ownership estimates. They include gifted/free copies in their estimates. -- ferret (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q2 2016

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 9, No. 2 — 2nd Quarter, 2016
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2016, the project has:

• 208 Featured Articles
• 70 Featured Lists
• 10 Featured Topics
• 1 Featured Portals

• 27 Featured Pictures
• 1070 Good Articles
• 20 Good Topics

---

Content

• Changes to Featured and Good content
• News items and announcements

• WP:VG Talk Page Digest
• Follow-up: Gender Declaration in WikiProject Video Games

---

Project Navigation

• VG Project Main pages

  • Main project – talk
  • Project category – talk
  • Portal – talk

  VG Project Departments

  • Assessment – talk
  • Cleanup – talk
  • Peer review – talk

   

  • Reference library – talk
  • Newsletter – talk
  • Video game images – talk

To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata property made

The archive date property was accepted. See P2960. @Thryduulf, Izno, Czar, and RexxS: Pinging other participants who may want to know this. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: See test at Template:Video game review score/testcases#Archive URL test. If that looks good to you I will push it live. You'll need to go populate the archive date everywhere you have previously added an archive url. I did it for Far Harbor for testing already. -- ferret (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The [±] seems a bit obtrusive at the moment. Would it be a better idea to not include it and instead leave the message at the bottom of the template where it says "Edit on Wikidata"? Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

That's just the module's default. The main review template uses the pen style. The only change there is the archive date. -- ferret (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've just finished adding the archive dates to some other articles. Feel free to push it, unless you want to wait for the opinions of Thryduulf, Izno, Czar and RexxS. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I've been following with interest - you just beat me to updating Fragments of Him (Q25264345) where I got an edit-conflict, but I can see that it works. It all looks good and I'd say go ahead: you can always iron out any small wrinkles as you get more feedback. --RexxS (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done It's live. -- ferret (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Another problem has risen from this. To fix this, check out Wikidata:Property proposal/dead-url. @Thryduulf, Izno, Czar, and RexxS: Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Centralized discussion at Module talk:Video game wikidata czar 07:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Email

Re your email: As Wikidatans, we strive to avoid data duplication. Thryduulf is just making sure that there's no other way to present the data. And also making sure that everyone else knows there's no other way. Incidentally, both of those goals are important. An "artist" property looks like it duplicates the other properties of which we communicated earlier. --Izno (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@Izno: Just seems confusing that there's all these discrete properties that could be solved the same way as "artist" is being proposed. I have trouble with inconsistency. I.e., why not "creator" with "has role" "director". -- ferret (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Some of it is "ease of query" with a different level of refinement, and some of it is "director is applied in different domains, so it might have different meanings and thus need a more refined relationship". Example: A director in anime production is not the same as a director in video game production, I don't believe. --Izno (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

So should we avoid using the director property...? If I were using creater and has role, I'd pick the same "director" item as the qualifier for both. I know that's just an example, but in the end it feels to me there's two approaches and Wikidata is inconsistently using them, or has shifted stances without an effort to rectify older forms. -- ferret (talk) 12:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe I didn't understand the initial question. Can you rephrase? --Izno (talk) 13:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Let me use a different example. There is a property for Illustrator. We can't use it because its very narrowing defined, at least in textual context. It's for people who illustrate books. But why have it at all? There's two possible designs: Have discrete properties for a given role, or to have a generic property like creator that accepts a "has role" qualifier. It seems both designs are in use, but with new property requests being opposed on the basis of the "has role" model. -- ferret (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Fallout 4

thanks for fixing that ref link on fallout 4 Optimusprimerotf (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

NP. -- ferret (talk) 02:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Pokemon Go edits

Your remark that "Multiple editors have removed it due to prior talk page discussions" is not correct. My edits are being deleted with NO prior discussion. They are being deleted simnply because some don't like the content, regardless of it being properly sourced and documented. My contributions are supported by quality reliable sources. Please let me know ASAP if you are supporting the deletion of my edits without discussion. What you are supporting is against Wikipedia policies. Santamoly (talk) 06:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Santamoly: The "CIA Involvement" has been discussed before here if you're talking about those edits. There is also a discussion currently going on here. Your claim of there being "no prior discussion" is obviously invalid.

So far, the reverts have been:

1. I revert you
2. You revert me
3. Dissident93 reverts you
4. You revert Dissident
5. Brianga reverts you
6. You revert Brianga
7. Ferret reverts you

I suggest you read WP:BRD and WP:3RR. Also, WP:UNDUE might work here too. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Anarchyte covered everything that needed said, really. The sources are not reliable, and "CIA involvement" has been prior discussed, regardless of whether or not you tweaked the content and use a different website to source it. Join the talk page if you want to argue for inclusion. Just because you use a ref tag does not make your content "unrevertable." -- ferret (talk) 12:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Re: Oblivion

How isn't Nexus a reliable source?--Armanikoka (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Armanikoka: It's less about whether Nexus is a reliable source (which is questionable), and more that the source didn't support the statement. You can't say something like "Mods were created to address lots of bugs" and link a list of mods. All that shows is that there are (lots of) mods for Oblivion. The claims such as "high number of bugs reported" or "as an efficient solution" aren't in the source. It represents original research. -- ferret (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Pokémon GO

You undid my edits that said "Pokémon GO is not just an augmented reality game, but also an alternate reality game," saying "Please provide a source. Reading over alternate reality, it doesn't appear Pokemon Go really has any of the hallmarks."

I admit that it is kind of an open question and a grey area, but so is calling it "augmented reality." The problem is, there's an "AR" switch that allows players to turn off their camera, and most players turn this off, for two reasons: battery life, and it makes the game easier. But if you turn off the camera, is it still an "augmented reality" game? No, not really.

There's a bunch of other terms that may apply to Pokémon GO: Transreality gaming, Alternate reality game, Mixed reality

We can't just call it an augmented reality game because the marketing departments of Niantic and Nintendo tell us to call it that.

Further reading:

• http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/all-hail-the-beast-which-gave-us-pokemon-go
• http://boingboing.net/2016/07/11/alternate-reality-is-a-massive.html

Howrad (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Howrad: Please use the article's talk page so other editors can weigh in. Talk:Pokémon GO -- ferret (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ferret: Done, thanks. Howrad (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Baldur's Gate Enhanced Edition - Approve of your recent edits

Just approved your recent edits; did a rewrite of it, but I accept and approve your edit that you did, although I did slightly amend that first paragraph. Anyway, is there a chance you could do the same to the Leads and Infoboxes of both the Baldur's Gate II: Enhanced Edition article and the Icewind Dale: Enhanced Edition article, perchance?GUtt01 (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@GUtt01: I'll give them a glance shortly. You may want to read over WP:LEAD. It covers the details of what I said in my edit notes, such as trying to avoid references in the lead, etc. As you continue editing I would advise doing the lead last. Build out the body and add references there first, then do the lead as a summary of the body. What I said about references in leads technically applies to the infobox as well. The details of the infobox should be in the article body somewhere, with sources. The best place to be verbose about when particular releases for each platform was made would be the Development sections. Sometimes there's a release section as well, but its less common. -- ferret (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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

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)

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

Hyena Road

Dear Ferret, as you feel you must revert my entire contribution, do you mind if we seek editorial advice on this matter. As I mention, I don't mind you changing or adding, but you seem to just want to remove anything I add. Russell Russell miles (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Russell miles: My suggestion would be that you start by utilizing the talk page at Talk:Hyena Road to discuss the additions you want to make. The plot section you have been adding has a lot of spelling and grammar issues, and an un-encyclopedic voice. It needs a lot of copy editing. Keep in mind that the contribution is not erased. It can still be viewed in the article history and used to as an outline to write a new plot section. But the number of issues with the current plot section, I do not believe that edit should stay in the article at this time. -- ferret (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Ferret, you also removed the names of non-Canadian actors? Could you advice why you object to even that? The matter is of little importance to me and if you want to article at it so be. Can I ask, have you seen the movie or know who Paul Gross is? Russell miles (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Russell miles: Keep in mind that I used the "Undo" button, which reverts the entire edit. I would recommend making changes like these in separate edits. For example, edit the cast, save, then edit the plot. This way if there is an issue with the plot, it can be undone without removing the cast. I have reinserted the cast additions, after correcting the names and linking to the correct Wikipedia article for one of them. -- ferret (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Ferrt, I see you changed the caste entry. Could you advise me why deleted them in the first place? What was your objection to them? I currently recovering from falling of a bike a fractured 8 ribs, and my partner is away. I watch the movie as I like Paul Gross and saw the Wiki entry was light in detail. As the Movie entry is lacking a plot summery, could you add one. I don't wish to bother further and risk offend you. Oh, can I ask how many contributions you deleted today and what draw you to mine on what is a very obsure Canadian movie? Russell miles (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Russell miles: As I noted above, the cast was removed as part of undoing your plot edit. I have no specific objection to the cast addition, which is why I added it back once you mentioned it. I will review the plot you were working to add and try to check a few more sources and see if I can add something that meets WP:FILMPLOT. As for how I found your edit, Wikipedia provides a list of recent changes that many editors use to patrol for vandalism or other edits that may need to be reviewed. A very large addition to (as you said) an obscure Canadian movie is what caught my eye. Many times, this indicates a vandal who is copy and pasting large amounts of text into an article. For the record, while I have issues with the content you added, I consider it a good faith effort (Not vandalism), which is why I gave you a welcome and made efforts to explain why I reverted. -- ferret (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I find that facinating. I have only made minor contribution a few times before and not encountered such a response. If I understand you thought I was vandalising an article so reverted it without seeing that I had added actors names. And am I correct, that other than the entry truggering an alert for its size, you have no intererst in Canadian film making or knowledge of this particular film. You concern is style, size and nature, not content? Is that correct? Russell miles (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Russell miles: Based on your contribution history, you registered this account today and only edited this article, so I have no comment on any past edits you have made before that. I read the entire edit before reverting it, and I was aware that the cast section was included. My lack of opposition to adding the cast back is irrelevant, as the revert was still the right call due to misspellings. My interest in Canadian film making or this film in particular is also irrelevant to making the revert.

I've also just finished adding a short plot summary. It needs some expansion but it is a start. If you have further suggestions to the plot summary, I suggest you use the article's talk page at Talk:Hyena Road -- ferret (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Ferret, I have been very polite so I don't understand your offensive attitude. You actually said you deleted my contribution without reading the actor contributions. You also said you felt it vandalism and had been alerted to it my contribution by a robot. I also don't understand you refusal to listen to what I say. I am assuming you had no knowledge at all of the movie (you evade my question in that regard) and just deleted my contribution in entiety. You have now just copied my original work without attribution. Why did you do this? I don't have any interest in changing things as I find it too petty. What I am interested in is why you have this attitude? So my earlier question is how many such contributions do you delet on a given day? Why do you put so much effort into sonething that almost no one else will read. Eg, the entry under Hyena Road had been left unchange since the film maker entered it when the film was realesed. I was the only person to have read it and bothered to enlarge it. I was probably one of the very few to have read it at all. This does strike me as interesting hobby and I would like to understand your motive. Russell PS what is your first name as I prefer not to use Ferrt Russell1960 (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I've looked into this, and Ferret is correct - your edits were not appropriate. First of all, adding your personal critique on the movie is inappropriate. You may make a Reception section outlining what professional critics and journalists say on a film, but it is not the place for you, a Wikipedia editor, to add your personal thoughts on the film. If you want to write your own commentary on the film, you need a different medium, like a Wordpress blog or something. The plot summary also wasn't quote appropriate either. I spotted many typos, and the tone didn't sounds like an entry in an encyclopedia, it sounds more like an informal conversation in a social setting or something.

I've protected the page from editing for a bit. I hope you'll use this time to discuss on the article talk page, and propose additions or changes there. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 21:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Russell1960: I'm not sure its constructive to reply to you any further, as you're making accusations about my behavior that don't match the actions I've taken or the reasons I've provided you for taking them. For example, I've never mentioned any sort of robot, and I specifically stated that I did not revert your edits as vandalism. I've made several efforts to explain the reason your edits were reverted and how it was done. Above, you directly asked me to add a plot section to the movie, and when I did so, my edit summary clearly stated that it was an effort to summarize previous plot addition (The one you did). You also need to take a moment and read WP:Multiple accounts, concerning the usage of multiple accounts.

This will be my last response to you on this topic. At least three editors including myself have directed you to use the talk page for the article at Talk:Hyena Road if you feel the article needs more work. -- ferret (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Ferret, yes, I am having truoble loging in to reply. I seem to have got it right now. You actually did say you deleted my contribution as you see any inclusion of material you feel excessive as vadalism. You also said yiu were alerted by a Wikipidia auto program (a robot) and went to article based on size. I asked how often you do such things. It was a simple question. I'm confident you had no interst in my particular contribution. It does facinate me that soneone wouod go to so much trouble for a topic they have no knowledge on. Personally, I'd not be game to offer an opinion in conversation on something I knew little. You have now posted factual inaccuracies as you simply copy the inaccuracies I added ... I had assume you had no knowledge of the film in question. As you would not answer this question when I ask, I figured that was one way to clarify what you were doing. That is why I encourage you to add a plot. - I darn't say it matter as I suspect next to no one will ever look at this entry and only fans of the movie will puck out your factual error. The error is quite obvious- if not you'll see if you look back over the edit history. I'll be interested in how quick it takes you to make the change. Enjoy your hobby. Russell Russell1960 (talk) 02:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Look, I think it's rather apparent Ferret has no interest in casual conversations with you here on his talk page. Please, either make specific suggestions on the article talk page, or drop this and move on to other things. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 02:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Look, it's clear you are misunderstanding my comments, but this is pretty easy. I've tried to explain to you a bit about how recent changes are patrolled. There's no robot involved, it's a list much like the article's history list. I've clearly stated why I initially noticed your edit (A very large addition), but also clearly stated that was NOT why I reverted it. I reverted it based on the content, which I read in full and found to be unsourced, full of personal critiquing and opinion, original research, massive spelling and grammar issues, and several other issues. I then took the time and effort to go to your talk page and write an explanation on why I reverted you, something I would not do if I felt the edit was vandalism (I would leave a warning in that case). Wikipedia has policies and rules about content, which I linked you to on your own talk page. Personal knowledge in a topic is not required in order to make a good judgement call that an edit is not suitable to stay live on Wikipedia.

I have removed the plot section I added in a good faith effort to work with you, since you have claimed you deliberately included inaccuracies at Lugnut's talk page. Please note that now that you've made this statement, the edit can be viewed as vandalism, as you are being deliberately disruptive. And for the record, Lugnut is a different person.

Please do not reply to my talk page again. Use the article's talk page to discuss the article's content. Further replies here on my talk page will simply be reverted without comment. (Serge and other talk page stalkers: feel free to handle if you see it first) -- ferret (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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

A cup of coffee for you!

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

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)

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

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

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.186.102.211 (talk) 07:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

As noted in my edit summary: "Per talk page discussions regarding surname, and iffy sources." The sources you used didn't seem particularly reliable (See WP:RS), and there were several discussions on the talk page showing a consensus against the change. You're welcome to start a new discussion on the article's talk page if you disagree. -- ferret (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Telegram

Hello, Ferret. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 19:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar: Got it. Will have a reply back to you later tonight. :) -- ferret (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Video games/Sources

I see that you removed the entry from the table. Shall we reinstate it now that we agree to tag it as situational? I'd rather have it at the Genre-specific section instead of Situational sources, as it will make it clearer that it's a source dedicated to a single theme; we could add the usage caveats at the Notes and limitations column. Diego (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Diego Moya: You need to give project members time to reply and form a consensus. Two people, in under 30 minutes, it's not a project consensus. There's no rush, we aren't under any deadlines. (That said, could you read the article talk page concerning possible table formatting?) -- ferret (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I know I said I'd let discussion take place without arguing with people, but at the same time, Diego, you're kind of forcing it through here. Very little input has been given so far... Sergecross73 msg me 15:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Ferret, Sergecross73, I have no problem with having further discussion; but I didn't see any reason to wait, given that Ferret and I expressed the same basic opinion, and the issue had been discussed several days ago both at the article's talk page and the RS noticeboard, with no further editors participating in them. WP:BOLD is a Wikipedia policy guideline, and WP:EDITCONSENSUS says that, if there are no further changes, you have achieved a consensus.

What is the purpose of waiting to edit the main page (in this case, the list of sources known to Wikiproject Video games), when there is no active disagreement in the discussion that has happened so far? If there is some reason for disagreement, of course revert; but reverting edits for which you don't really disagree with its content, merely because you don't think they've been discussed enough, I don't understand. Diego (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I was rather apprehensive in my views on it at the talk page, I just said I wouldn't actively argue my view because I wanted to see what others said without my influence on it. That being said, I still have my doubts - its still just Wordpress blog that cites Wikipedia and Wikias as sources in its articles. Beyond that, all we've got is Ferret and one other user from RSN offering tepid, limited support. That's not really the consensus I had in mind here... Sergecross73 msg me 17:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Sergecross73 Did you read their methodology, where they explain that they cross-check every reference they find at blogs and wikis with professional news articles? I don't remember if I read it at their "Who we are" page or their peer-reviewed paper, but it's not fair to say that they merely cite Wikipedia as a source. Diego (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:VG is a very active project, and sources are typically discussed for a week before getting added. You boldly added it, and were reverted asking that the discussion have more time. My response wasn't really an endorsement of the source, just a statement that the About Us was promising and a caveat of "If reliable, ....". If you feel necessary, you could ask on WT:VG for others to check WT:VG/S to try to get more eyes quicker. Discussing the merits of the source on my talk won't move things forward in the end. -- ferret (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)