Talk:Records

The most times a mouse was caught in a row

What happened to that page?

It was a pointless page which wasn't in keeping with the factual nature of the Wiki. There is no practical verification of any of the records, and only a very few people store their 'records' (so in fact they're not records since they'd almost certainly be beaten by the 99.9% of people who don't keep track). See the 'Vanity' section below.

WyndStryke 18:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Heaviest catch Stat

I think the heaviest catch stat should be reintroduced to mousehunt.--Tmm stinson 04:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Updates

I am able to update the catches when the new updated lists come out.--Tmm stinson 06:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Best 36 Hour Log?

Should we add a "record" for the most gold and most points shown on a 36 hour log, or would that be too hard to determine? Moreover, would logs longer than 36 hours complicate the issue? (okay, duh, they would, but by how much?) --Dreamwalker 22:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea and have added the idea. I have also created a group on the forums--Stinson 15:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Vanity

We've had lengthy discussions in the past about pointless vanity stuff being posted to the wiki. Is there a consensus from established editors that this page really belongs here? I just came across it and am disgusted by the idea. Showing off individual "accomplishments" is NOT what this wiki is for. -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 16:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think there was a consensus from established editors. Just someone from the forums thought it would be a good idea. *shrug* I don't see any harm in it, if it's just restricted to one page in the Wiki. At the same time, I wouldn't miss it if it's gone. -- Camomiletea 17:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The information on this page is useless. It only shows what's been reported by a tiny subset of players. I know that I have never reported and never will report any of my statistics like those shown here. I'm not the only one. If the information isn't verifiable, it shouldn't be here. And it's NOT verifiable as being the <whatever>-est because most players don't participate in the forums and don't care to show off their stats. The page should be deleted and any other existing vanity stuff should be removed without mercy. -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 17:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It is highly inaccurate as Brossow has pointed out, due to low level of participation. The only chance it will be accurate is if the developers started implementing it as part of the game, which they have once before, and have since taken out, probably to reduce server load. Even whatever information here is bound to be outdated with time, due to lack of updates/interest from editors. Case in point, it has not been properly updated in 1 week.

Since the issue of these type of articles have been discussed before, and other similar pages have also been removed, this article will be up for removal in 3 days time, pending any solid reason/improvements to keep the page. And as has been discussed amongst editors before, "just because" is not a valid reason. Also, it is stepping into an area that people often take for granted, that of privacy and permission. The record on Jennifer Rewer's log was not posted by her, and the only other record did not come from the actual player either. -- Grexx 19:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel that this information would both be interesting and useful to certain players who might want to compare themselves to what the highest standard achieved is. Although as stated above it may be erronous and inaccurate at times, it still provides a gauge for other players to see. I do not encourage the deletion of this page; however if it is such a pain in your necks then remove it. I am just stating my point; this is what I really feel. -- dZZt

It may be interesting and useful to a handful of players out of the tens of thousands who play, but this simply isn't the place for it. There are Facebook groups, discussion boards, and third-party websites where this info might be accepted and encouraged. The wiki, however, is for accurate reference of general interest and usefulness, not unprovable trivia that the vast, vast majority of players don't care about and don't benefit from. -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 16:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)