Talk:Makron (Quake character)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I removed the stub tag. I've played both Quake II and IV, and every possible piece of information on the Makron that can be gathered from them is included here, and more.

Contents

[edit] Clumsy Wording

"A player can believe that Kane is accomplishing all his tasks to take revenge on Makron for being the reason he was turned into a Strogg." I'm not sure what that's trying to say, so I can't figure out how to re-word it. Can the author, or someone else who can wend their way through that sentence, please fix it? --156.34.213.83 18:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not just remove it altogether? It's a subjective issue that doesn't really contribute to the facts of this article.Ming2020 02:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I had a go at re-wording this line. I also noticed the line after it wasn't necessary (it was mentioned in the next paragraph too), so I did some tweaking with the next paragraph too. JaffaCakeLover 19:09, 29 August 2006 (BST)

[edit] Makron Pic

hi, i think that the quake 2 macron pic is sorta bad, you should change it, bye.

I uploaded a larger Makron pic (and a pic for the Jorg). Can't get the exact pose of the previous pic though - can't find the 'move camera' option in q2mdlr! JaffaCakeLover 02:07, 21 August 2006 (GMT)


[edit] Sections

There is a section that tells you how to kill the Q4 makron. That seems too much like a game guide piece to me and should be removed. Bobo10512

[edit] Quake 4 Makron pic incorrect

Makron can't be seen in open space in Quake 4. I think this picture is made by "cheating" -- using the in-game console command to summon the needed monster to the current location. In the real game, Makron appears only in the rooms. --217.10.41.22 19:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought it looked a bit suspicious; I just finished the game yesterday, and never fought him outside. I suppose it's a balance between an informative pic and a deceptive one; Should it be replaced at all? If so, should it be as good a screenshot as possible in one of his battles (perhaps have notarget & god turned on), or should it be taken using a model viewer? JaffaCakeLover 15:23, 30 August 2006 (BST)

I think a model viewer shot would be preferable, due to the absolute clarity of the character (neutral lighting, no backgrounds etc.) but an in-game shot as described by JaffaCakeLover would be acceptable. Makron1n 23:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You moderators are worse than Nazi's in a Wolfenstein game

Go ahead and keep sticking your head in the sand if you want.

Internally at id Software, we affectionately refer to John Carmack as "The Makron"

It's a real pity that fans of our game will have to look at the history for this page, and this talk page to find that out. So much for wanting to add "new" and heretofore unknown id lore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xianantkow (talk • contribs) 22:19, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. Unfortunately, Wikipedia needs to operate on certain established policies and guidelines in order to help ensure quality content and make sure that errors do not slip in. Given your reaction and behavior during this incident, it would appear that you are not familiar with these policies and guidelines. In addition to the material you added being trivia that probably isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia anyway, it's vitally important that claims made in Wikipedia be attributed to notable, third-party sources. Your edits did not meet any of these criteria, hence they needed to be reverted. The fact that you obviously are able to add pages to the idsoftware.com server (and did so only in order to try to win a revert war) only underscores the point that third-party sources are required; after all, you could have edited that page to say anything at all you desired, and that is hardly indicative of fact. Your personal assurance is not sufficient, no matter who employs you, or how sure you are that it's true. (After all, what if the rest of the encyclopedia relied on this metric alone for whether something is true?) A reliable, third-party source must reference the claim in order to make it worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. There's even an argument to be made that you should not be editing such pages due to a conflict of interest; if the claim is true, let someone else make it. Given your response above, you should probably also be made aware of the practices of assuming good faith and not engaging in personal attacks ... as well as learning a bit more about how to edit Wikipedia markup. Thank you; I hope as you learn more about Wikipedia, you begin to understand why these policies and guidelines are in place to help ensure accuracy and quality. Xihr 23:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The fact that I am able to edit pages at idsoftware.com should underscore the truth to this, but have it your way. Tired of arguing with you. What possible motivation would I have to put something false on our webserver, that potentially the entire world, much less my bosses would read ? It seems completely retarded that, by your standards, I need to utter this factoid in a print or web interview in order to make it onto Wikipedia. Xianantkow 23:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
It underscores that you have access to be able to put things on the idsoftware.com Web site. It indicates little else. To reiterate, the issue isn't that you need to "utter the factoid" in a print or interview in order to make it verifiable, it's that third parties need to do so. First-party sources are suspect according to no autobiographies and conflicts of interest. This isn't because they aren't true; it's because in a freely editable environment like Wikipedia, claims need to be backed up by reliable, third-party sources in order to avoid a complete free-for-all. This isn't about you (and it isn't about me, either); it's about standards (of verifiability, attribution, and notability) that have to apply to everyone or else they're meaningless. Further, these are not my standards, as you imply; these are standards agreed upon by the consensus of the Wikipedia community, and are available for you to peruse at your leisure at any time you wish (and even suggest amendments to!). Finally, and only since you yourself brought it up, I have no idea what your employer would think of you posting something false on your Web server. But perhaps they wouldn't be all that impressed with you wasting company resources on company time in order to try to win an edit war on Wikipedia. I sincerely hope you read more into the philosophies of Wikipedia and the policies and guidelines I've cited in our discussions to learn more about why these standards are so important in a freely-editable encyclopedia. Xihr 02:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually Xihr you really don’t get. If anyone thinks that Wikipedia is a legitimate source for facts then they are complete idiots. I’ve seen countless things “referenced” on this site that are completely wrong and misguided. My child, who is in the 6th grade, has already learned that you can’t reference information on Wikipedia because it is probably wrong. If id Software wants to add something that is completely harmless to a web page and they can’t because of someone like you who basically just doesn’t like it then it proves that the entire site is waste of internet bandwidth. Don’t you think you can spend your time on more important articles with incorrect sources than pick on id Software? Come on…grow up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.159.39 (talk) 03:58, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly true that there are many incorrect facts available on Wikipedia, and that for detailed research, Wikipedia should not be a primary source. But that is precisely what Wikipedia's existing polices and guidelines hope to curtail, and the suggestion to ignore them in this one instance is completely inconsistent with pointing out that there are already lots of errors in Wikipedia. Perhaps the particular claim here is innocuous enough, whether true, false, sourced, or unsourced. That doesn't mean that the existing standards should be relaxed in this one instance just because it's not a big deal. The standards should be applied uniformly, without exceptions. In cases where there are questionable or downright incorrect statements on various Wikipedia articles, there's no question that those claims should be removed, amended, or tagged with [citation needed] markers (pending eventual deletion if they are not backed up) in order to get someone to back them up with reliable, third-party sources; and this is something I routinely do if you check my edit history. That there are incorrect statements on Wikipedia, which is certainly true, is not a valid justification for allowing unsourced, unverifiable claims to be slipped in here or there. The end result of that would be more incorrect statements in Wikipedia, not less. As for this person speaking on behalf of id Software, a company which I greatly respect, I think you're reading something into the discussion here that simply isn't established. This is someone who has access to the idsoftware.com Web site and is using it to try to win an edit war, hardly proof that the claim being offered here without sourcing is an official statement on behalf of the company. Maybe the company would champion this person using company resources on company time to engage in this violation of Wikipedia standards, maybe they wouldn't. But the fact that it's being done isn't proof of anything either way. Also, I'd be remiss to not point out that his namecalling ("Nazi's" [sic]) and his vandalism of my user page does not help his case, nor help the cause of increasing Wikipedia's overall quality. Xihr 05:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Makron (vase painter)

Makron was also the name of an important ancient Greek vase painter. See Makron (vase painter).

Can the above please be added to the top of the article? I'd prefer if there was a disambiguation page, to be honest, as the vase painter is probably more important in the long run than this stuff here, but in any case, some reference should be given. athinaios (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Makra9.gif

Image:Makra9.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)