Talk:Transformice

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because... transformice is an amazing game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.185.61 (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, that does not help to prove anything. Wikipedia has a set of rules and policies to follow. Saying that an article shouldn't be deleted because the content in question is amazing doesn't work. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 13:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

As for the super shaman summary

No, it's not important. It's WP:GAMEGUIDEy. One sentence is enough to describe it. I might agree that it was worded poorly, but the paragraph should be removed again. --Izno (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Main Section

From what I've seen from the history page, the main section keeps getting revised by the article's original creator back to its original form. This form is quite confusing and filled with grammatical errors, so it can either be deleted, revised, or turn into an edit-war. My first revision was completely reverted; it may have had some problems itself but it also addressed a few things that the previous version didn't. I've made yet another revision, hopefully better; if you have an objection with it please keep the good parts instead of deleting it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDerpMeister (talk • contribs) 19:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

My problem with this 'rewrite' is that you're adding nothing of value. You're simply rewording to say the same thing and making things more long-winded than they need to be. Statements like "Cheese is also used as an indication of experience" and "using their building powers to kill or block mice in a variety of creative ways" are opinion, non-neutral and not encyclopedic. I appreciate the fact that you're trying to help, but the edits you've made are not necessary. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 16:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I happen to think the exact opposite. Your edits are poorly written and confusing, and omit some data (most importantly the server structure of the game). They spend time on minor parts of the game (such as collision detection) and leave out larger parts. In other words, they're written from the perspective of someone who has played the game, making them not NPOV and therefore misleading for people who don't know the game. My edits may have problems, but they clear out several objective issues with the main article. I'm not going to engage in an edit-war with you, but deleting my edits in their entirety is giving a sign that your edits are perfect and unchangeable. And they're not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDerpMeister (talk • contribs) 13:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't happen to think my edits are unchangeable. List off, specifically, what is poorly written or confusing. I wrote the article with the entire mindset of explaining the game to those who are not familiar with it or have never played it. There's an entire one mention of collision detection, which is linked to its article if anyone doesn't know what that is. What other "larger" parts are there? If you continue to explain in further detail, the article is going to be bogged down with too much information about small details, which is the reverse of what you think of my edits. Keep explanations simple and move on. You're also confusing the point of keeping a Neutral point of view. NPOV means that all opinions stated in the article remain neutral and not biased to one set of opinions or another. I would also like for you to explain what your edits 'clear out' in terms of the so-far nameless objective issues with the article. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 21:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If that's what you mean by NPOV, then how do you justify your statement about my edits not having it? Anyway, objective issues...tons of them. For starters, look at your obvious grammar errors and awkward points (which I revised) such as "after which" at the beginning of a sentence. The reason your discussion of things like collision detection and spirits and the price of map-making is confusing is because these things are small specific items in the game; examples that don't seem to be examples OF any important larger topics. A good article has a consistency of detail OR detail based on relative importance, and if talking about random things in some detail and missing out on entire trends (such as the fact that cheese is more than just an achievement system now) isn't confusing, I don't know what is. If you wrote about every little feature that came out, we'd have a ridiculous article that you'd have to change every update; if you only write about some than the article won't give newcomers an accurate picture of the game. This article is CONFUSING, and if you don't take anyone's edits, even the little ones, it's never going to get any better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.47.109 (talk) 13:44, 7 November 2011‎

The problem is this: If there's anything that's confusing, it's your explanation of what's wrong/needs to be changed. Once again, you're not telling me anything in specific that you have a problem with other than "cheese is more than just an achievement system now" which I have no idea what you're talking about or where you got that from in the article. Why is the article "CONFUSING"? Why is your article NPOV? I said it before, "Statements like "Cheese is also used as an indication of experience" and "using their building powers to kill or block mice in a variety of creative ways" are opinion." 'Cheese is used as an indication of experience.' By whom? 'kill or block mice in a variety of creative ways.' Who's to say such a thing is 'creative'? That's opinion. And as I said (again) before, "I don't happen to think my edits are unchangeable." I want the article to become better, but you're really adding nothing of value to do that. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 04:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Translation

Hello, some of you may look at the article in Portuguese: pt:Transformice ? From what I saw, is what this article is more in front of the other articles in other languages. So to improve the article in English, wish someone could translate Portuguese into English and put the information here. Thank you. (PS.: I don't speak English fluently, so do not be scared of writing if I'm wrong.) ~ Matheus93tfm

20:59, 5 November 2011 (Brazil's Time) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matheus93tfm (talk)

Edit warring by User:Tobyepic

User:Tobyepic is edit warring to insert a poorly written section which includes... "You can get ranks and do different things in the tribe. Each tribe member can stalk each other and are usually a brotherhood where they are helpful and supportive with each other inggame." Please can someone with more knowledge make it intelligible? Theroadislong (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I've already created a report on this matter. Just leave the reverting alone until the report is resolved. Antoshi ☏ ★ 17:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Put Shaman Info Together?

Just an idea to place both Shaman Info Items (Hard and Divine mode) together. Also perhaps to add the benefits of divine mode too (constant wings and anywhere range).

May try and edit later... Just some ideas for the road though, as Shaman mode and Mouse mode seem like two completely different games to new players. --Minibytefli (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Image is out of date

The game image is *really* out of date. Can someone replace it? 1618033golden (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)