→My talk page: Manual archive, enough of this topic |
Alexandra IDV (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
Seems like this resolved on its own, I don't see a need for me to add anything. -- [[User:Ferret|ferret]] ([[User_talk:Ferret|talk]]) 11:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC) |
Seems like this resolved on its own, I don't see a need for me to add anything. -- [[User:Ferret|ferret]] ([[User_talk:Ferret|talk]]) 11:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC) |
||
* Classic on a Stick is doing those manual linebreaks ''again'' - see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atelier_Lydie_%26_Suelle%3A_Alchemists_of_the_Mysterious_Painting&type=revision&diff=812414928&oldid=811261429 Atelier Lydie & Suelle], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disaster_Report_4_Plus:_Summer_Memories&diff=prev&oldid=812413173 Disaster Report 4], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King%27s_Knight:_Wrath_of_the_Dark_Dragon&diff=812413533&oldid=803059764 King's Knight], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judgment:_Apocalypse_Survival_Simulation&diff=812413473&oldid=772745279 Judgment: Apocalypse Survival Simulation] - despite being asked not to many times ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ClassicOnAStick#A_note_on_forcing_line_breaks] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ClassicOnAStick#Infobox] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ClassicOnAStick#July_2017] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ClassicOnAStick#August_2017]).--[[User:IDV|IDV]]<sup>[[User talk:IDV|talk]]</sup> 20:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Why split List of Nintendo Switch Games into 2 parts? == |
== Why split List of Nintendo Switch Games into 2 parts? == |
Revision as of 20:27, 27 November 2017
Reply
Hello dear Ferret, I have successfully replied to your post in my talk page. Take a look! Milad Mosapoor (talk) 16:32, 12 October 2017 (GMT)
ClassicOnAStick
I see you've blocked ClassicOnAStick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in the past for troublesome infobox changes. I was going to reach out to them when I saw this in my watchlist, which adds the children parameter despite no children being mentioned in the article. Then I saw the edit before that one which includes the famous <br />
tags you have warned them about repeatedly.LM2000 (talk) 06:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Re: clarification.
Hey there, LM, I'm here to explain why I made that change. I was referring to his official obituary as seen here but I did fail to communicate this fact. Rewind Wrestling (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for responding. I would have taken that bit to your talk page but you previously haven't responded to queries.LM2000 (talk) 06:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Seems like this resolved on its own, I don't see a need for me to add anything. -- ferret (talk) 11:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- Classic on a Stick is doing those manual linebreaks again - see Atelier Lydie & Suelle, Disaster Report 4, King's Knight, Judgment: Apocalypse Survival Simulation - despite being asked not to many times ([1] [2] [3] [4]).--IDVtalk 20:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Why split List of Nintendo Switch Games into 2 parts?
The splitting of the List of Nintendo Switch Games into multiple parts seem problematic. As the list is constructed as a table that can be sorted as by any column splitting it alphabetically breaks this functionality. If a user wants to sort on exclusivity, release date etc. they will only see half the chart sorted as desired.
The justification for this change; that the size is (or is expected to grow) too large, seems dubious. The functionality of the table is greater when it is intact, and in the modern web a wiki page of any size is tiny in terms of total data compared to many regularly visited pages on the internet.
Is there a standing wiki policy that drove this change? If so perhaps this policy needs to be reconsidered with regards to these sorts of tables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.70.148.22 (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- WP:SPLIT covers a lot of it, in a general sense. It was a very basic, non-controversial split. Sergecross73 msg me 00:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- Serge basically said it. Otherwise, any discussion on this should probably be at the list's talk page, where I've already created a discussion. This is pretty common and routine. -- ferret (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- Ironically, another editor just had issues at List of members of the Lok Sabha (1952–present), a massive list that Chrome almost chokes on trying to edit. -- ferret (talk) 01:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Hypocrisy
Why is their Twitter page an acceptable source, but their Facebook page isn't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnknownAssassin1819 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- If you read Ferret's edit summary, it seems pretty clear that its not about source reliability, but rather, that the content wasn't worth adding. Sergecross73 msg me 18:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
SLOW YOUR ROLL
Yeah, don't delete my page, Bluehole, inc.. It's obviously a notable company with one of the most sold PC GAMES OF ALL TIME, and obviously an article stub, thus the STUB tag. Thanks for your understanding.. I'm not a robot and I'm not using scripts to automatically write and delete articles, so I hope you can understand my human perspective, that content takes time to develop.. that deleting said content makes it more difficult..
Neuroelectronic (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Neuroelectronic: The article has already been through a recent AFD discussion, so it has been established that notability is not met at this time. Additionally, a well developed draft, as far as content goes, already exists. Sourcing is still too weak though. -- ferret (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Maybe you should protect the article, there have been a lot of vandalism on it today! Govvy (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Govvy: It's close to that. There have been many constructive edits as well but as it becomes more disruptive, it may have to be. -- ferret (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Might want to consider making semi at least a week. The fanboys are livid, to put it mildly. HalfShadow 21:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- @HalfShadow: It's on my watchlist, will extend as necessary. Would like to do it as short as possible, of course. -- ferret (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Unconstructive editing on Star Wars Battlefront II (2017 video game).
How was changing grammar and adding a fact vandalism and unconstructive? Can you elaborate? You also said something about Reddit, do you mean the popular forum website? The changes I made had nothing to do with "Reddit's backlash" and as I said before, I was only stating a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronth07 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Aaronth07: The article was locked due to the constant addition of pay-to-win and related phrases in the lead, which is inappropriate and disruptive. We have the controversy well covered already. -- ferret (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
@Ferret: It seems you have not covered it well. I only see two references to the controversy, one at the controversy section, and another at the top. Despite this, Google has not included the pay to win aspect in their card when you search the game on Google. You also said that it is "inappropriate and disruptive" to state the game is pay to win. Can you explain how it is "inappropriate and disruptive" to state a fact?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronth07 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not the soap box for this. We've covered the controversy in detail, and summarized it in the lead. What Google shows is not our concern, nor would we put pay-to-win in the lead sentence on any article. It's clear POV pushing. -- ferret (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Why wouldn't you put pay to win in the lead sentences? It seems like wikipedia has covered every major fact about the game in the first two sentences except its pay to win aspect.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronth07 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Not responding huh, I guess Wikipedia (and mainly, their Admins) will censor anything they don't like.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronth07 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- He already answered this. Rather than badgering him with the same question over and over again, please learn the difference between an encyclopedia and an editorial. If you want to document how journalists perceive the game to be "pay to win", discuss on the articles talk page on how to add that constructively to a "reception" or "controversy" section. Sergecross73 msg me 04:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
response to your message
I thought i was editing my own thing, not a template! SOrry!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Derecwc (talk • contribs) 23:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
a brief question
Hey, I had this account for a while but just started to edit more recently, so I'm still a bit new to this (don't judge plz). On Ultra Sun and Ultra Moon, you removed my edits and sources because the sources were not reliable. My question is, what do you believe is a reliable source? Would comments from forums work? Because it is really obvious that the community is extremely split on these games, and I believe this information should not be omitted, but I don't know if some sources are good enough. WikiBrainHead (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hi there. Click on this to read about reliable sources, though really, the short version is, we use content written by websites that employ professional journalists and writers. Websites like IGN or Eurogamer. So actually, the opposite of things like forums, messageboards, and personal social media accounts. In the meantime, it may help to use WP:VG/S as a help guide - it's got a ton of examples of websites/sources that are approved for use, or to be avoided. Sergecross73 msg me 21:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- Serge covered this pretty well. In essence, we have to have a reliable secondary source cover the fan reactions. Forums or user polls are considered user generated, and cannot be used. But if a reliable source like IGN were to write an article about it, it could be used. As for identifying reliable sources, Serge's links will help, but the bottom line is anyone can make a website these days, so we have to evaluate and vet them like this. If you have a particular source you feel meets the grade, bring it up for discussion at WT:VG/RS. -- ferret (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Constant vandalism
Hey, I am probably asking the wrong person, but I don't know where to report stuff like that, and I saw that you are an admin, so here it goes. This page: Ajit V. Pai is being constantly vandalised right now. The first sentence right now says several slurs, even though the page has extended protection (i can't even revert the slurs). You should probably lock it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl.i.biased (talk • contribs) 02:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Karl.i.biased: It looks like it was already reverted and another admin has deleted the offensive edits. The editor responsible was blocked from further editing. -- ferret (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Note of caution
While I have zero problem with the format change myself, please note that changes like this are against WP:DATERET (ISO-like dates are acceptable in references), and you might rile some editors that insist on using a certain date format. --MASEM (t) 01:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'm aware, and I often skip cases like this. I consider it a bold edit to unify formats, as it was not completely uniform. If someone contests though I do not feel strongly about it. -- ferret (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Xbox 360 Enhanced
As you requested her are sources, both primary, and secondary;
Sources below
- Primary:
- Xbox One X Enhanced Xbox.com offical list
- Secondary:
- Halo 3 and other Xbox 360 games are being enhanced for Xbox One X - The Verge
- Three More Xbox 360 Games Are Getting Enhanced For Xbox One X - IGN
- Play Three Generations of Games Better on Xbox One - Major Nelson
- Xbox One X enhanced games list, specs, VR and everything else we know about the renamed Project Scorpio - Eurogamer
- Skate 3 to be enhanced for Xbox One X Alongside Mirror's Edge and Gears of War 3 - Eurogamer
Cheers - Kyle1278 (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Removal of speedy deletion notice on Petscop
Hello! I see that you've nominated Petscop for speedy deletion, due to it being previously deleted and not containing secondary sources that contain significant coverage. However, I have referenced several secondary sources of significant coverage, the most major of them being The New York Times and the Game Theorists, but there are also others. I don't believe that the adding of this notice is necessary, and since it had already been removed after The1337gamer's adding of it, it seems that others agree with me on this. I hope you don't mind, and feel free to tell me why you disagree, if you want to. CipherCraft618 (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- @CipherCraft618: I did not add a speedy deletion tag. I added a notability tag, which is certainly still a concern. NYT and Kotaku are the only two reliable sources in the article. A notability tag does not trigger any sort of deletion process. -- ferret (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Ferret: I suppose I can understand why YouTube videos are unreliable, however, the three videos in question did undeniably result in an increase in popularity for the series, which is significant, so I don't really see any alternative to keeping the sources around. Any suggestions? CipherCraft618 (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- @CipherCraft618: Wikipedia isn't really concerned about the popularity of things. We are concerned about lasting notability demonstrated by significant in-depth coverage by secondary reliable sources. These youtube videos do not add to that, as they are not reliable. Youtube channels for the most part fall under WP:USERG and WP:Self-published. -- ferret (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Ferret: I realize it's hard to give a solid definite number for these kinds of things, but about how many sources would be enough for the article to be considered notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CipherCraft618 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- @CipherCraft618: I'd say 8-10 to be on the safe side of surviving another AFD. -- ferret (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Ferret: I realize it's hard to give a solid definite number for these kinds of things, but about how many sources would be enough for the article to be considered notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CipherCraft618 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- @CipherCraft618: Wikipedia isn't really concerned about the popularity of things. We are concerned about lasting notability demonstrated by significant in-depth coverage by secondary reliable sources. These youtube videos do not add to that, as they are not reliable. Youtube channels for the most part fall under WP:USERG and WP:Self-published. -- ferret (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Ferret: I suppose I can understand why YouTube videos are unreliable, however, the three videos in question did undeniably result in an increase in popularity for the series, which is significant, so I don't really see any alternative to keeping the sources around. Any suggestions? CipherCraft618 (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Re: Mini Ninjas vandal
The one you just blocked, in case you aren't aware, is a Maelbros, some kid in France with a wild imagination, methinks. Perhaps you might want to keep an eye on said IP range for more Maelbros socks. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Blakegripling ph: Thanks for the LTA note. I have a couple of the recent pages watch listed already. They actually are getting caught by various template maintenance categories now, as they keep reverting to old broken syntax. -- ferret (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. There may be more socks involved, but you've blocked the most recent and prolific accounts. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- No, you got that one, too [5]. Much appreciated. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Excuse me...
Why won't you remove the protection on the LGBT Video Game Characters page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:6B52:6400:75B4:4473:B506:1544 (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)