Talk:Floatpoint

IFComp ratings
Talk:Interactive fiction is a nice collected play to discuss the appropriateness of including Interactive Fiction Competition ratings in this article. — Alan De Smet | Talk 00:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Floatpoint statistics
the correct place for the statistical miracle that User:Alan De Smet has discovered (that floatpoint received a high average rating in a user-voted competition, despite it not being the highest, and despite the fact that figures are not available for many years of the comp) is his own blog and/or webspace, or perhaps ifwiki. Not a wikipedia article, which reports encyclopedically on what others have said about the subject in question. Surely such an amazing statistical fact, will be reported far and wide, right? why else would mr de smet be so keen on including this trivia? let's take a look at the game very own promotional page: http://emshort.wordpress.com/my-work/ - how odd! doesnt seem to mention this statistical miracle, which is so important it merits several sentences in the intro! surely the games very own promotional page would mention this? in fact, i couldn find a single discussion of this statistical miracle anywhere at all. why is that?

"Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." (WP:NPOV) in this case, the appropriate weight for this statistical miracle is nil, until sources can be found that discuss it. even the ifcomp pages themselves don't discuss it. strangely, they don't even put a ranking of all the ifcomp games together into a "greatest of all time" list. why is that? could it be even ifcomp doesn't deem such comparisons relevant or noteworthy?

is there any particular reason this particular editor is so keen to promote this irrelevant trivia on the wikipedia page? would he care to share why he deems this largely-ignored statistical miracle so important to the wikipedia page, when it has nobody else other than mr de smet raving about it? until then, it shall be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.206.218 (talk • contribs)

To keep the discussion unified, I've copied 86.25.206.218's comment over to Talk:Interactive_fiction as part of Deletion of Slouching Towards Bedlam statistics thread. My reply is there. — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, just a reminder: the conversation continues over at Talk:Interactive fiction as part of the larger Deletion of Slouching Towards Bedlam statistics. — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Floatpoint. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070515062751/http://www.xyzzynews.com/2006winners.html to http://www.xyzzynews.com/2006winners.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)