Talk:Randonautica

Scientific blurb in the article and unreliable source
This article is about an app that does nothing besides throw out random coordinates near the user. There's no science involved. Let alone quantum physics. Any attempt to pass attractor, void (astronomy), anomaly (physics), quantum dot or quantum computing as being actually related to their real life counterparts is criminally misleading. If that terminology was to be mentioned, it should be clearly stated that they're used in a fictional context, and sourced to a reliable source, which certainly isn't. --uKER (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , can you state why Pocket Tactics is unreliable?  Gerald WL  05:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Pretty much because WP:RS. 95% of web sources are considered unreliable. That one in particular is as informal and non-notable as it gets. --uKER (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , not all web sources are unreliable. Similar to how not all news are reliable. I looked at other PT's content, it is just fine. I don't see how it is unreliable, except if you have strong evidence that it is.  Gerald WL  05:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In the apps' creator's page, in the question titled "This is all pseudo-scientific nonsense", they themselves admit that the app is not meant to meet any academic standards and it's meant more as entertainment/art. If such terms are to be mentioned at all, it should be mentioned that they are used VERY loosely, preferably making it explicit that they're not used with any scientific rigurosity. --uKER (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , the sentences you removed included that disclosure. While they don't MEAN to meet academic standards, there could be science playing behind the curtains. Because of that page, you called PT unreliable, which doesn't make sense. I read their other articles; it seems to be just fine.  Gerald WL  06:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The thing is, sources are NOT reliable by default. And any attempt to take all of that scientific blurb with any degree of seriousness is blatantly nonsensical. So much so, that while not saying it explicitly, they do acknowledge it themselves. --uKER (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Number of users seems erroneous
The page states 190.8 million users, quoting a NYT article which only mentions 10.8 million. I was not able to find any other sources indicating anything close to 200 million downloads. 213.125.193.242 (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)A guest
 * Then be bold and change it.  Gerald WL  11:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)