User talk:ferret

sorry

Hey Ferrit... Sorry I was only changing the elder scrolls thing to mess with my friend... i was gonna change it back immediately— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.39.250.242 (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2016‎ (UTC)

No critical acclaim for Dishonored

Hi Ferret, I´m sorry if one of the edits came off as peacocky. I was trying to let it shine through that Dishonored did in fact receive critical acclaim (91 PC-version on metacritic as a direct quote, over 90% on GameRankings as an indirect fortification), a fact that I feel is under-represented within the article. In fact (no pun intended), I edited it to “praise” in the first place to combine both the aspect of it being in the strange position of having received both critical acclaim and generally positive reviews and being quotable as such. Since you deleted the “praise” and all the correlating sentences, I´m lead to believe this is a very factual article, using the quotable “generally positive” from metacritic to justify the text in the intro and the “reception”-part.

However, this begs the question why at least the “critical acclaim” on metacritic is not represented anywhere in the article in written-out form, all while the “generally positive”-phrase is even used in the introduction of the page.

I understand why the “praise” was deleted on that approach, yet I don´t understand how the quotable “critical acclaim” has met the same fate? If the article would have a factual continuity, shouldn´t “generally positive” and “critical acclaim” both be featured separated by a “/ Slash” since both are very much empirical? So why was that edited out? Just to explain my point a bit better with a more plastic example: If I would ask three groups (consisting of, let´s say, respectively 10 persons) with the same level of validity to review a videogame and two groups came to a mixed and one group to a positive response, how would it be legitimate to only mention the two “mixed” group-conclusions and mention their results in the intro/review part of my website while leaving the last group hanging? This would be inadvertent distortion to some extent.

So this is quite the same problem I have with this article; while it´s well written and features a lot of quotes, why is one aspect of the critical response featured throughout all of the article in written out form, while another tremendously important aspect of critical response of just the same level of validity is left without a written-out form? Why shouldn´t both not just be separated with a “/ Slash”? Why was this last edit deleted since it was, in that respect, a factual edit with a valid basis on a legitimate score provided by the website the “generally positive” used throughout the article is based on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autorefiller (talk • contribs) 08:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Autorefiller: Since this pertains to a specific article, and a Featured Article at that, I feel it would be better to discuss it there. Any discussion here on my talk won't be seen by others and might result in others reverting changes, even if between us we agree on something. -- ferret (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

To add to that, in re-reading your message, I was not the one who reverted your edit that contained the "/ Slash" format. Since we've got multiple editors involved, the article talk is definitely the place to go. I'll start a section. -- ferret (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Define "there's no added value from [GameRankings]"

I am thinking about clarifying this one guideline because I cannot seem to understand the meaning of "value" at all. I mean..."How can you all manage to understand what it is trying to mean?". Does "not adding value" mean "It does not belong here.", or does it mean "It is not at all important."?

My point is that I want to know what it means and how I can clarify it on that page of guidelines. I have a feeling that value is an important word but cannot quite work out what it means, so can we edit the guideline so that no one else would misinterpret it? Thank you. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Gamingforfun365: The rough version is that the VG project reached a consensus that Metacritic holds more value than Game Rankings, especially for newer games. GR often lists the same reviews as Metacritic and the score is generally the same. Sometimes, GR will list fewer reviews than Metacritic, or ones that are less reliable as sources. In addition, they are both owned by CBS Interactive, so there's usually little value in using two sites from the same company. Typically, Game Rankings has more value for older games, particularly those that predate Metacritic. The discussions that led to this can be read at WT:VG#GameRankings discussion. If you have any further questions, it may be best to ask at WT:VG. -- ferret (talk) 03:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

But does "value" mean "importance"? With all due respect, this implicitly answered my original question, and I am looking for an explicit answer. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Value in this case is probably best taken to mean, "Does it improve the article?" The inclusion of Game Rankings does not in many cases. It provides no information that Metacritic lacks, and creates clutter or confusing prose. -- ferret (talk) 04:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

So, maybe, we need to make the guideline say that instead for the sake of clarification.

Moreover, even though I am obsessed about sameness and being informational, I do not think that raising the question about its change again would do any good (therefore making me be without questions on the talk page), and I wish that somebody informed me of that sooner, but I do not ever use my watchlist; I do not see any use of it whatsoever. Recently, I have seen the newspaper on that WikiProject, but my only question is whether it also provides us news about recent changes for video game guidelines. It that should be false, then, I might start suggesting that we inform subscribed users about recent consensus about changes for such guidelines. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 05:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I am starting to become used to the system because there actually is a point of doing this. It just takes time for me to adjust. Still, such a notification of the recent change of the change would have been great.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamingforfun365 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 18 January 2016‎ (UTC)

As for notification, unfortunately I don't think there's any real structure to ensure things like this get broadcast. Consensus is established on WT:VG on a regular basis for things like this. Responsible editors who are making changes based on a recent consensus will generally refer back to the discussion or where it has been noted, such as WP:VGAGG. The best I can offer is that you should watchlist the main project page (WP:VG) and some of the subpages (WP:VG/RS, WP:VG/GL). -- ferret (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Your recent editing history at Rise of the Tomb Raider shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

So that's the template. Big and scary. Basically, the idea is that if you see stuff like Kvally was doing, and it wasn't just pure, blatant vandalism, the proper course is to revert once and then engage in discussion. If he won't discuss, then you can pursue other options, but it looked to me like you just engaged him in a revert war.

That being said, I'd like to ask you a question, because I believe that you have some expertise on the subject. Does Microsoft qualify as a publisher since they "published" the game to the Xbox and other Windows/Xbox-y platforms? I thought that a "game publisher" published games, and simply porting it in didn't count. I'd love it if you'd answer this question on the article's talk page. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jsharpminor: Normally I wouldn't but I feel a need to defend just a bit. The first edit I reverted introduced some OR and put Microsoft as a developer, which is wrong and needed to be undone. He then put it as publisher, and I reverted and posted to his talk. He repeated this once more, and I reverted (Third over all, second regarding publisher), and left another (warning based) message. I'm aware of 3RR and made sure I stopped at this point, and approached an admin (@Sergecross73) to take a look, staying out of it further. Kvally ultimately self-reverted. As for the actual content in question, I'll reply at the article. -- ferret (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Bethesda Softworks - Studios

See source. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Replied to user's talk page. -- ferret (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Left 4 Dead 2 Competitive

Hi. I made some edits to the Left 4 Dead 2 article, which you reverted. I'd like to work together to get that information back into the article, as it's an important facet of the current state of the game on the PC. What is it about the article that you didn't care for or that I can improve? ZeroShadows (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@ZeroShadows: The additions consisted of what we refer to as original research. The entire section was unsourced, except for one reference to a mod's webpage, which does not act to support the content you added. Anything you add to the article needs to be backed by reliable sources. User communities, such as forums and Steam groups, are inherently unreliable. You can find a list of sites considered reliable by the Video Game project at WP:VG/RS. Remember, the sources must actually back what you are adding to the article, for example you cannot add "Such and such mod is the defacto standard" unless a reliable source actually says that. -- ferret (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Book of Mormon Edit

I feel that my edit on the "Book of Mormon" page was constructive and does not violate wikipedia terms. I would like to work with you to add in this section.

Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.231.191.88 (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Replied to IP talk page. -- ferret (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Would you kindly

Would you kindly fix the other broken section redirects then? — Dispenser 22:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Dispenser: Done. Most of those probably shouldn't even exist, but they're fixed now. -- ferret (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to join StrategyWiki

Hello Ferret. I've noticed how active you are working on video game articles. I was hoping you'd consider accepting an invitation to join StrategyWiki. We're a friendly wiki community focused strictly on video games, and we could really use someone with your acumen and attention to detail to help around the site. We'd be very grateful for your contributions. Hope to see you there. Plotor (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plotor (talk • contribs)

Regarding the Xbox 360 main page pictures

Looking at the page from my phone, I see you are right, the original caption was correct. But, load the page on a 1366x768 display, and the centre picture (the S model) is displayed on the left while the right one (the E model) is displayed below the first two, in the middle. This may create some confusion if a reader isn't familiar with the consoles. Tesla (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Hippy Tesla: I'm sorry, I somehow missed this message till this morning. I'd suggest bringing this up on the article's talk page. I'm not sure of a good technical solution to the images shifting due to screen resolution. Perhaps the text should simply read "From left to right: Model 1, Model 2, Model 3". -- ferret (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The Elder Scrolls VI: Argonia

Just noticing you were the last one to edit the redirect at The Elder Scrolls VI: Argonia and I wanted to get a second opinion. Is there any reason for this page still to exist? It lines up with some of the reasons for deleting anyways. This title was a complete rumor in the first place. Idealist343 (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Idealist343: Pretty sure it was a hoax or pure rumor. It's probably died down so I don't think it's really a valid search term anymore. -- ferret (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

How Good are you at Makeing pages?

Hey do you think you could help me with my page? I can't code from scratch very well.--kody1492 ^Talk 16:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kody1492: Feel free to borrow from mine for examples. I borrowed heavily from Sergecross73 (talk · contribs) myself. Other people have even more advanced user pages, but mine or Serge's will give you some examples for user boxes, making columns, tables, etc. You can learn about userboxes at WP:USERBOX. -- ferret (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!--kody1492 ^Talk 16:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

"non-English release dates except developer's region"

Where does it say that this information isn't supposed to be non-English release dates included. Sounds like this is pretty egregious ignorance of Global perspective.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Prisencolin: Template:Infobox video game#General fields has the documentation, which was decided by WP:VG consensus. If you disagree, you'll need to take it up at Template talk:Infobox video game. Note this only pertains to the infobox. Sourced releases for other languages can be included in the prose, which is typically put under the Development section. -- ferret (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

stay off my talk page.

CombatWombat42 (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)