Difference between revisions of "User talk:Ambrevar"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Games / Netbook Games)
(ATI)
Line 15: Line 15:
 
=== ATI ===
 
=== ATI ===
 
While I share your enthusiam, please avoid bias in articles without appropriate referencing.  It almost sounds like a advertisement/opinion.  Wikis ''should'' stick to the facts.  [[User:T1nk3r3r|T1nk3r3r]] ([[User talk:T1nk3r3r|talk]]) 21:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 
While I share your enthusiam, please avoid bias in articles without appropriate referencing.  It almost sounds like a advertisement/opinion.  Wikis ''should'' stick to the facts.  [[User:T1nk3r3r|T1nk3r3r]] ([[User talk:T1nk3r3r|talk]]) 21:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 +
:Alright, I'll add some references (my own experience, + the feature matrix again?). By the way the "fact" Catalyst was better at 3D has never had appropriate reference either. --[[User:Ambrevar|Ambrevar]] ([[User talk:Ambrevar|talk]]) 00:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:14, 6 February 2013

Games / Netbook Games

I think you missed the warning that's at the top of Common_Applications/Games/Free, so I undid some of your edits, as Warzone 2100, Battle for Wesnoth and FreeCiv are already listed in Netbook_Games.

As for your many other edits - thanks for making the wiki even better. Keep up the good work :-) -- Karol (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I did notice the warning, but I did not take it into account because imo WZ2100, Wesnoth, etc. belong to the same category than 0 A.D. for example.
I can't see the clear relation between "noteworthy with low system requirements" and netbook games? Where do "noteworthy games with high system requirements" fit? And why wouldn't the netbook games article feature simple games?
In fact I believe the seperate article make things only more complicated.
Don't you think a merge would be best here?
Ambrevar (talk) 08:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Please discuss this in Talk:Netbook Games#Merging (it's only a bit out of date, it should refer to Common Applications/Games instead of Games now). -- Kynikos (talk) 10:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

ATI

While I share your enthusiam, please avoid bias in articles without appropriate referencing. It almost sounds like a advertisement/opinion. Wikis should stick to the facts. T1nk3r3r (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I'll add some references (my own experience, + the feature matrix again?). By the way the "fact" Catalyst was better at 3D has never had appropriate reference either. --Ambrevar (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)