Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games

Welcome to WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games's talk page. Please respect the following guidelines on this page:

1. No personal attacks.
2. Use Wikiquette.
3. Please sign your comments.
4. Please create a new heading/headline for each new conversation.
5. Please keep all posts on the topic of this WikiProject; we do not want to hear about how bad (insert game's name here) is.

Also, if you are requesting expansion, wikifying, or cleanup on an article within the project, the place to do it is on the main page, not here on the talk page. But anyhow, enjoy the talk page! - Greeves (talk · contribs)

Starships! is up for deletion

When do these attacks stop? Is it going to be an on-going battle until they've deleted everything in the category? I can only think of two articles that are better sourced than Starships!. We better stop this, or we will lose a lot of really good articles if they get away with this. Matt Brennen 20:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe you have the wrong idea. These are not attacks, they are just people looking to make an encyclopedia and make Wikipedia a better place. The game does not look notable and as such can be deleted. I don't think it's a battle but rather people are becomming more familiar with the policies and people are now noticing these articles and how they are unnotable. I personally do not think Starships! is a notable game and to help Wikipedia and WikiProject MMO I voted Delete for the article.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 23:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well you might as well delete the whole category then, because sourcing doesn't get much better than it does on starships, I figure that's why they are going after it so hard. It's like setting a precedent. They get away with calling perfectly valid review sites "Personal sites" even though they have employees, made hundreds of reviews, and have been around for years. Another called Starships a "flash game", proving that they aren't even looking at the game at all. Yet, nobody challeneges them. We lost 40 games in one night because one editor put quick delete on every MMORPG in the category, and nobody is challenged to explain their actions. Starships has plenty of sourcing, even a bibliography. I look around at all the other MMORPG articles, and none of them measure up, and helpful editors like you will continue to vote for them to go. Half of them are gone now. This category will be completely gone in a month or two. This is very sad. Matt Brennen 02:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources resources

Due to the large number of MMPORGs going through AfD at the moment, it might be instructive to put together a list of reliable review sites for such online games. And perhaps a list of unreliable sites. If concensus can formulate such a list, it can be referred to when AfD's come up and hopefully avoid some of the heated arguments. Marasmusine 19:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

One of the recent bones of contention has been over websites like MPOGD. Why not start off with peoples thoughts on this? DarkSaber2k 21:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I also want to know people's opinion of GameOgre.com. Is this a reliable site for references? Marasmusine 18:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the deletionists will have an answer to everything. Being on sites like GameOgre won't help. They will say it is a list service, or even a blog, or whatever works. What they won't say is "Yes, that's a perfectly acceptable source." Sites are being deleted that have been written about in books, given multiple independent reviews, have dozens of fan-sites, hundreds of thousands of players, etc., and still get deleted. Half of the category was speedy deleted in a single night, no talk, no reviews, just "Poof!" gone. The other half is being systematically taken down piece by piece. This is not about "sourcing". This is about an attempt to empty this entire category. At any given time there is an MMORPG article on the AfD. We don't need better sourcing, we've lost articles that had plenty, we need arbitration. Matt Brennen 21:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:WEB clearly rules out Internet directories in its list of acceptable sources, so the Multiplayer Online Games Directory obviously fails this. So far as I can tell, GameOgre.com is also an Internet directory - each game seems to get a neutral or adspeak introduction (written by the submitter?), followed by unedited user reviews. If the site accepts any game as a submission, then it is not a "credible published [material] with a reliable publication process", as required by WP:RS. --McGeddon 21:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

One point worth considering though is that MPOGD has a monthly award it gives out. I've personally believed they can be used a source for notability, but what does anyone else think? DarkSaber2k 22:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What does their Game of the Month actually mean? Clicking through their site, they have a game listed for each month, but they're only repeating its directory-entry description in each case - it's not clear whether it's an editorially-nominated award, or simply autocalculated from user votes that month. (Planetarion and Hattrick actually both appear several times, which would suggest it's the latter.) --McGeddon 00:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"ABOUT MPOGD's GAME OF THE MONTH POLL The Multiplayer Online Games Directory's Game of the Month is chosen by players as the premier game for that month. All playable games listed are capable of winning this award although a game can win the award only once a year (starting 2002)."

From the bottom of the page. Planetarion has appeared 11 times, seven in 2001 alone to suggest more than editorial pick. Squids'and'Chips 00:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

But on the other hand, there are plenty of other awards that are considered acceptable that are voted for by the general public, such as annual PC magazine awards. DarkSaber2k 08:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Most well-known award ceremonies only have one or two "people's choice" awards, don't they, to avoid too much vote-stuffing? Skimming around the web, there are lots of minor-MMORPG forums encouraging their players to vote every day, and it's implied that the voting system isn't particularly rigorous ("mpogd's poll is laughable. Winning this thing is a few lines of code.").

Given this, I don't see any reason to regard an MPOGD award as anything other than proof that a game has a dedicated fanbase. If there are any reliable sources that write in detail about the award being respected, though, then maybe we could take it seriously. --McGeddon 09:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That's fair enough, I can agree with all that. Do any of the Link directory sites have ACTUAL notable awards, or should we just consider them all to be unreliable sources? I still haven't seen any argument as to why they might actually be considered notable. DarkSaber2k 09:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

An award on it's own doesn't really cut it, unless there's some kind of journalism attached to it (as in significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources) Can we get together a list of sites that provide professionally written reviews and articles? IGN and GameSpot are ones that keep popping up. Marasmusine 11:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:WEB does specifically allow sites which have "won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization", even if they've no other coverage. But yes, any well-known award would require some sort of reliable source to identify it as "well-known". --McGeddon 12:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd say that MPOGD would qualify as well-known, but the award is definitly not independent of the games, as even a casual search of most broswer game forums reveals a thread co-ordinating votespamming for such awards. DarkSaber2k 12:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Prods (May 2007)

These articles have had prods added to them today:

• Alter aeon
• Argentum Online
• Argentum Online 2
• Last Chaos
• Little Savages
• Music Maven

Does anyone know anything about these games? Squids'and'Chips 20:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Alter aeon has had some new references added although they mostly seem to be MUD lists (which I will now remove). Marasmusine 07:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the only one with a third-party source is Alter aeon, and it's only a single one. The deleteionists will tear all six of these to shreds if we don't do something. A shame too, these are all games with large followings, and very notable. It makes me sick to see what is being done with these articles. Matt Brennen 21:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem isn't the sourcing. While this is one reason the other reason is that the games show no notability. Also as stated in the AfD for Starships! WP:WEB applies to these games as well.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 21:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Your weird twin-personality with regards to these articles is strange to say the least Matt. You supported the deletion of Gothador and have (rightly) tagged the FallenSword article for a repost deletion, yet seem curiously blind to any other article that has exactly the same failings as those two. DarkSaber2k 22:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Having looked at other entries on the page (MU* Games) that links to Alter Aeon, I would say that if you delete the Alter Aeon page by all rights nearly every other link on that page should go as well. Most of them have reference links back to only the home page for the game, and nothing else. Personally, I think deleting all of them would be a tremendous loss of history. At the very least some of this stuff should be archived as historical. 00:20, 11 May 2007 (CST) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.48.71.243 (talk) 03:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

To show it is historical, you first need to show it is notable, which is the main concern here anyway. Or are you talking about an archive of every MMORPG there is? Wikipedia is not a directory (WP:NOT). Perhaps something like Gamerwiki is more appropriate. Marasmusine 09:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image concern

Regarding this image used in {{WP MMO|task force=Neopets}}, I believe that image is fair use and shouldn't be used in the template per policy. Squids'and'Chips 22:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That was the WikiProject Neopets logo so naturally, I included it in the template. Now that you mention it though, that is fair use and it should be removed. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • reviews)} 12:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Battrick Cup

I just stumbled across this article, listing winners for a cup from the online game Battrick. Anyone want to share their thoughts on whether this is really the sort of article that should be here? Smacks a bit of fancruft (Oh noes, the 'c' word!) to me. DarkSaber2k 22:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it fell under WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, at the moment ("Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource as freely available reference material for the construction of related encyclopedic articles on that topic."), but it fails basic WP:N as well. If the Battrick Cup itself is notable and has sufficient sources backing it up, then it could stay if rewritten to have more non-statistical content, but otherwise this should just be a prose section in the Battrick article, without all the stats. --McGeddon 00:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Habbo Hotel

Lately I have been improving the Habbo Hotel article. Since it has been classed as "Start" it has improved greatly; it now includes proper reliable references, images, an infobox and alot of other good information. Is there any chance the article could have its class raised? I suggest a B class. ~Spebi 02:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, what do you think is needed for its grade to be upgraded to an A? ~Spebi 03:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

First I would also suggest a B class article. Second to go to A class it must be a Good Article which must be nominated.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 05:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

With improvments to the referencing, more about the technical side of things (servers, and so forth), critical reception and reviews and general expansion the article should be well on the way to Good Article status. You also need to make sure that all the images have the correct tag ({{non-free game screenshot}}), sources and fair use rationales. Have a look at some other gaming GAs/FAs to see what you need (I've found Half-Life 2 to be an excellent example), and in particular Final Fantasy XI, World of Warcraft and RuneScape - the three MMORPG GAs. Also consider requesting a peer review. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

For the peer review you can instead have it sent to the WikiProject Video games peer review to have it reviewed by reviewers who specialize in video games. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • reviews)} 18:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Guild Wars task force

I am wondering if anyone would be interested in joining a Guild Wars task force if I were to start one. The whole series of Guild Wars articles is not looking very well right now but could be improved! So, anyone interested? Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • reviews)} 03:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has responded as of yet but I think that I will start it anyway hoping that more participants come along as the articles really need the help. Expect to see the page soon at Wikipedia:WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games/Guild Wars. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • reviews)} 20:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Done! To discuss further, please see WT:MMO/GW. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • reviews)} 00:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Medievia

I propose Medievia be considered for deletion under the rules being discussed here. Clearly, its lack of attribution does not make up for the fact that it is one of the largest MUDs in existence. Further its references to the late '90's controversy regarding code theft are to usenet archives which also clearly should not be allowed.

More seriously, if an extremely notable site with loads of history like Medievia doesn't qualify, what's the point? The code controversy discussed in the usenet archives went on for years, yet because it's on usenet it must be ignored? I understand that you're trying to clean up the section, but if you apply the same rules to internet game pages that you apply to say, a geology page like Sapphire, you're going to come up short.

These games exist in the internet domain, which is a very transient medium. How many thousands of players have to be active before it's notable? If half a million people have played a game over the past 15 years, is that notable? How would a game administrator go about proving it given that web games have a vastly different review process than games shipped on cds? 76.48.71.243, 09:35, 18 May 2007 (MST)

I don't get it. Are you saying you think it should be deleted? Or are you nominating for deletion so that you can go on a WP:POINT-style rant about how its notable, but lacks reliable independent third party sources? DarkSaber2k 12:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I propose it be deleted, as it fails the notability specifications. Further, I also propose that the Realms of Despair and BatMud pages be considered for deletion for the same lack of notability. 76.48.71.243, 14:15, 18 May 2007 (MST)

I put Realms of Despair up for prod yesterday, since then I'm happy to say a reference from the Toronto Star has appeared. Marasmusine 20:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what point you're making here, but Wikipedia has a very clear definition of what it means by "notability" - a subject needs to have multiple, reliable secondary sources if it's suitable for an encyclopaedia article, and it has nothing to do with how many thousands of players have to be active. --McGeddon 13:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

My point is that if Medievia, arguably one of the biggest and most notable MUDs on the planet, is not considered worth keeping in WikiPedia, then perhaps everyone should take their hands off the keyboard for a while and think about the relevancy of the notability guidelines. If you apply it blindly, it will result quite simply in destruction of the entire category. Perhaps that suits the editorial staff, but I would think it unfortunate. 76.48.71.243, 14:15, 18 May 2007 (MST)

I agree about BatMUD, unless sources turn up, but Realms of Despair has proper independent third-party sources, so there's no grounds for deletion. DarkSaber2k 18:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

MU* games and notability

I'm afraid that most games on category:MU* games fail in notability. While I understand that there is a small group of dedicated fans of these games, objectivity forces one to reconsider if the games are notable enough in reference to WP:GAMEGUIDE. Many pages have already been removed under this guildeline, including the IRE games. I feel it is time to draw a straight line, and despite the amount of work put in the articles, and the quality of some, that apart from a very limited few, they should be deleted per WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:NOTABILITY. I would first like the oppinion of the people in this project before I stard afding most of those articles, and I will keep this talk page updated on the afds, but in my mind there is only one way to go, and that is large scale afd. Martijn Hoekstra 13:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that most MU*s (and a lot in the MMORPG category) are not notable; it seems everyone and their grandmother has started some online game. I've been prod'ing items in this category steadily over the past few days, but I don't think there's any great hurry. Also, whilst investigating the MUD articles, I've found that most of them have been started by single-purpose accounts, which is quite revealing. Marasmusine 13:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

So are the things those SPAs say in AfDs related with to the article! I cleaned out a large chunk as speedy deletes recently, and have been tagging up articles with notability and primary source tags, so that they have time to find any sources they have. There are numerous articles that prove web games ARE covered in reliable independent third-party sources, and people are just going to have to accept that if their favorite game hasn't been, then wikipedia policies are specific on what happens. DarkSaber2k 13:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to delete a large number of articles, try restarting discussion at Wikipedia:Notability (software). I, personally, believe that many browser games should be deleted (except for a few important ones such as RuneScape, etc.) though games made by major manufacturers should be kept. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • reviews)} 14:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not denying that some may be kept. Achaea, Dreams of Divine Lands for example seems to be notable enough for an initial sifting. furryMUCK, although it's article is now not more then a stub could be notable enough for it's roots of furry fandom. (I haven't checked that notability, merely noticed that the article claims it). It's just the vast majority will sadly have to go. Sadly because some of the articles are rather eleborate, (for an example, see Genesis LPMud)and clearly have received a lot of work. Yet they just don't belong in an encyclopedia. Martijn Hoekstra 15:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Once thing I've thinking about is the large number of Korean MMORPGs (almost a genre of it's own) which are made by professional companies but you'd struggle to find English-language references for. Perhaps worth a task-force? Marasmusine 14:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I did an attempt to create a taskforce at Wikipedia:MU* Taskforce. This is the first taskforce, or wikipedia namespace page I ever created, so I might have done one or two things wrong. I do invite everyone to better it, and maybe give a hand in getting it all cleared up. Martijn Hoekstra 17:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The browser game base thing... they kind of fall between wp:web and wp:game. Based upon current policy most of them fail notability and about 80% of them have been deleted in the past few weeks anyway. Its worth thinking of the consqences though, there are a few other popular culture type categories that are even worse. One in particular i browsed the other day had 175 entries, i think about 10 would of passed notability. If we want an encyclopedia Britannica fine, but I'd always thought WP was meant to be more than that. This is a long way from what i usually get involved in but, its a shame to see interesting, well written, interesting articles disapear under cat whatever of speedy delete, its the precedent it sets that concerns me more than the subject matter. Bjrobinson 00:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

As has been said over and over again at EVERY ARTICLE for the last MONTH, WP:V is not an optional extra. If article cannot provide reliable sources to verify notability, the policy dictates it be deleted. And if the article fails to even make a claim of notability then it meets the criteria for speedy deletion. It doesn't matter how many people play, how useful it is or how interesting the article is. I find the graffiti in my town interesting, but don't feel an article needsto be written in wikipedia about it. DarkSaber2k 11:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Please DarkSaber stop quoting that crap at me, you know fully well I am aware of WP policy. The policy was not always as it is now, it has changed. I have conceded under current policy these articles fail. I disagree with this policy, and as a contributor over a number of years, I think I have a prerogative put forward my point of view in the hope of changing enough peoples minds... because policy can change, has changed and will change again in the future. Bjrobinson 14:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

note that MU* games, which are being discussed here are not generaly browser based games. WP:WEB doesn't really apply here, and WP:GAMES was rejected, so I don't know what the current guideline would be, other than just 'normal' notability. Martijn Hoekstra 15:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The most appropriate page for MUDs would be WP:ORG, if you consider the MUD as either a piece of software (a 'product') or a service (logging on remotely to play the game). Thinking of them as a 'service' helps consider notability; Think of all the services you see listed in the Yellow Pages. Lots of people use them, and they are listed in a directory. That doesn't make them notable. So having X number of people play a game and having it listed on web directory Y isn't enough on its own for a wikipedia page. Marasmusine 15:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Bjrobinson, please remain civil. "Please DarkSaber stop quoting that crap at me, you know fully well I am aware of WP policy." That is completely unnecessary. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • reviews)} 14:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Deep breath, cucumbers, and all that. Marasmusine 20:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I just read WP:WEB and this sentence about what is classed as web content caught my eye: Any content which is distributed solely on the internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content. Surely this means that MUDs can come under the Web notability guidelines? DarkSaber2k 10:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles in need of attention

The following articles have all been tagged for a while without receiving any attention. For the most part they lack reliable secondary sources, some make no assertion of notability and most contain a lot of game guide and cruft material. I'm posting them here in case anyone here is more familiar with any of them and might be able to give them the clean-up and sourcing they need. If not, then I guess it's the ole deletion route again.

9Dragons
‎BatMUD
Conquer Online
Corum Online
Daimonin <--- Nominated for deletion (Deleted)
Eudemons Online
Flyff <--- Notable with a source, but could use a better one if possible.
GunBound
GunZ: The Duel
KAL-Online
Knight Online
Medievia
Outwar
PlaneShift
Rakion
Rappelz
Rubies of Eventide
Shot Online
Space Cowboy Online
Space Federation
The Empire of Martial Heroes
The Universal <--- Nominated for deletion (Deleted and redirected)

There's a lot of articles here, so deletion is not the preferred option. Some of these articles assert their notability fine, but lack the required secondary sources. Some of these articles, however, are genuinely awful, being mostly cruft and game guide. I know some of these are likely to be handled by the MU* task force, I'm just listing the articles I've personally found and asking if anyone with the time and inclination (unlike me) wants to have a bash at getting any of these articles up to scratch. Or just nominate them for deletion, whatever you think. DarkSaber2k 12:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I'll begin on the Rappelz article =D (although I'm sorry if it takes some time - I am very busy at the moment and with limited computer time) ZLiang 18:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.

How do I enlist myself in this project? :O - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Penwhale! Just stick your name on Wikipedia:WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games/Members and optionally add the appropriate infobox to your user page. Marasmusine 17:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Jubjub.gif

Greetings, as was alluded to in an above thread, images and other media from http://www.neopets.com/ are neither GFDL-licensed nor free. Per Neopets Terms and Conditions,

2. Using Neopets Artwork Off The Site.

• You can display our pictures on your own personal web pages for your personal noncommercial use ONLY as long as you write "Copyright 2000-2007 Neopets, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Used With Permission" or "(c) 2000-2007 Neopets, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Used With Permission" on EVERY page with our pictures and/or text and you link directly to us (emphasis added).

Thus, our use of media from that site may only be under the non-free content policy. Of particular importance in the non-free poliicy is point #7 and point #9:

7. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article.

....

9. Restrictions on location. Non-free content is used only in the article namespace; it is never used on templates (...) or on user pages....

Thus I have tagged Image:Jubjub.gif as a non-free image and as an orphaned non-free image. It is subject to speedy deletion as detailed in the speedy deletion policy. Please be advised of this, Iamunknown 18:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Habbo Hotel disputed

It is disputed whether Habbo Hotel is a MMOG or not. Please join in the discussion on Talk:Habbo Hotel and give your opinion on the subject. Kind regards, Sebi _[talk] 06:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It might be because I'm a bit bleary eyed this morning, but I can't see the specific discussion. Anyway, the answer is really easy. If it has been described as an MMOG in a reliable source, then that's what we print here. If a reliable source has also said that it isn't, then we print that too. Marašmusïne_Talk 09:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

MMOGCM

Is this page being maintained? [1] It seems like this was supposed to have a decision made on April 28th, which has long passed. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 06:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Final Fantasy XI Featured Article Candidate

Final Fantasy XI has been nominated for Featured Article status. Please comment, discuss, and vote at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Final Fantasy XI. Thanks. Kariteh 11:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

External Wiki Link Standard

What criterion would an external wiki on a MMORPG be judged against before it is allowed to be linked to the article? Are external linked wikis standard to the MMORPG articles? I found 48 of 148 MMORPG articles with links to external Wiki's but many editors are telling me that just shows how many pages need to be edited into the DMOZ standard. See the discussion on the Talk:EVE Online page and my own talk page. Alatari 18:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Dead links

At least 149 links of a suspected 550 were detected as dead, found on pages under the umbrella of this project. External links are primarily used in references and should be treated as though the references were missing. See parent discussion. Dispenser 04:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Neopets

I am hoping to tap into the resources of this WikiProject, that is, some new eyes/hands/ears/feet/teeth/spleens/what have you. Could a few people take a look at the article and give some comments and/or perhaps work on what needs work, what needs to be added, etc.? I'm still in the process of cleaning it up, adding more references, etc., but I'm not sure what else would be necessary to make this article better. Thanks. Squids'and'Chips 20:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed for deletion: Avalon, the Legend Lives

Avalon, the Legend Lives (via WP:PROD on 6 October 2007) Deleted

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Article for deletion: List of Neopets

List of Neopets is up for Deletion as of 02:03, 22 October 2007. So far, two keeps and two deletes (including nominator). SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 02:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Neopets at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Neopets (22 October 2007 – 31 October 2007) Deleted

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion: Enemy groups in City of Heroes and City of Villains

Enemy groups in City of Heroes and City of Villains at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enemy groups in City of Heroes and City of Villains (26 November 2007 – 8 December 2007) Deleted

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Article for deletion: Guiding Hand Social Club

Guiding Hand Social Club at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guiding Hand Social Club (28 November 2007 – 8 December 2007) Deleted

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Article for deletion: Deliantra (computer game)

Deliantra (computer game) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deliantra (computer game) (3 December 2007 – 11 December 2007) Deleted

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Wurm Online

I have greatly improved the Wurm Online page and I believe it is due for reassement, please take a look. There is still no section for combat as I am awaiting infomation on that subject. --Mollsmolyneux (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Article for deletion: Lusternia, Age of Ascension

Lusternia, Age of Ascension at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lusternia, Age of Ascension (20 December 2007 – 26 December 2007) Deleted

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Article for deletion: Tribal Wars

Tribal Wars keeps on being deleted. What is going on? KevinJi9 (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Flintlocke's Guide to Azeroth

An article that you have been involved in editing, Flintlocke's Guide to Azeroth, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flintlocke's Guide to Azeroth. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

New editor could use some help

This guy had his article deleted, and is trying to recreate it. Could some of you take a look at his sandbox for the article and give him a hand? Right now it looks like it's badly in need of correction, as it violates the "Wikipedia is not a gaming guide" principle; he is also having trouble establishing any kind of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Will do. I'll come up with some suggestions and examples of work in order to get him started.Gazimoff (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Mind if I have a look too? CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 19:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, the more the merrier :) Gazimoff (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

WP MMO: Articles of unclear notability

Hello,

there are currently 22 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2008 and may be slightly outdated.)

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Illegal Servers Proposed Zero Tolerance Policy

I watch a number of articles in this project for vandalism, and on a pretty much daily basis am confronted by one or more instances of vandalism in the form of (usually) IP users adding links to "private"/illegal servers to MMORPG articles. Is there any way a zero-tolerance policy can be instituted to lead to these users being banned from editing after adding in such a links/how-to information? --Resplendent (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

'Private' servers are invariably copyright violations, unless there is an open source MMO I don't know about. Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works expressly forbids linking to copyright violations:

"[...] if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [2]). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. [...]"

Users persistently adding such links are violating both the copyrights and spamming policies. Still, to aid understanding, an MMO project-specific guideline wouldn't go amiss. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 12:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As a note, IP users are rarely blocked for more than a few days. Have you tried leaving notes on users talk pages and raising the issues with them? Gazimoff ^Write_Read 20:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not, though I have a feeling it would be ineffective as many times multiple IPs are engaging in doing this (per article over a short span of time). I suppose that would preclude this approach in general from being effective, but it may help to dissuade some users who otherwise may not realize it. --Resplendent (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Inactive?

Is it perhaps time to spin this into the VG project, maybe as a task force? Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems that many parts of this project have dissolved and it is largely inactive. I believe that this is a case of "eyes bigger than mouth" and more bureaucracy has been created than necessary for the scope of this project. Reducing it to a task force is an obvious idea, but only if people are interested in such a thing, otherwise we might as well delete this project. All of the task forces associated to this project are going up for MfD due to an extreme lack of inactivity and a terribly small scope, although any that remain after the process could easily be incorporated into WikiProject Video games. We'll give dissolving the project and making it a taskforce a shot, otherwise it will just have to go. --.:Alex:. 17:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I would support analysing some of the non gaming subjects, such as questing, instancing and other themes common to MMOs, but I'm not sure if a WP or even a taskforce is appropriate. As games in general develop more online content and the MMO genre becomes increasingly popular, the overlap between this project and WP:VG becomes larger. I'd probably suggets subsuming it into the overall VG wikiproject. Also, most MMO players are probably playing their MMO instead of writng articles about it (I'm guildty of this one with Age of Conan).Gazimoff ^Write_Read 18:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)play store