Talk:Gaia Online/Archive 2

message: What happened to the section about criticism? It was probably the best written section on this article.
I agree. It was also very relevant. Certainly more informative than describing every little feature of the site. Kyphe 20:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism? 

message: I moved the criticism from the second paragraph of the article to here for discussion. The section appears to have been added by User:Raavea (diff here). Here's the text:
:Though originally Gaia was intended as a place for like-minded individuals to get together and chat, roleplay, and generally escape from their lives, in recent years it has become steadily more gold-orientated. Though there are still nests of literacy amongst the forums, many users would arguably say that Gaia has begun to become infested with illiteracy and trolls.
I see two issues with this section that I'd like other's opinions on. I think the article should first describe what Gaia is, and putting criticism of a sub-area of the site in the second paragraph gives undue weight to the criticism. Also, I feel the criticism needs some credible citation to be included, and not "many would argue ...," because as stated it doesn't conform to WP:NPOV. I would like to hear what others think about this. --Zippy 21:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The criticism has merit. The majority of the users on Gaia don't seem to know how to spell their own names.134.241.213.42 15:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have an outside source for this information? Something more substantial than a blog entry? 'Cause Wikipedia doesn't allow original research, you need a source.Spriteless 16:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "infested with illiteracy" 

message: I looked over the battle system. The quote about the rings being called "Battle Rings" is unverified. Someone had added similar uncited information on the gaiapedia and I was informed that the statement about Rings being the primary method of the game was true, but they had never been named "Battle Rings" or "Skill Rings" so technicaly if that is even there it shouldn't be quoted. A more acurate revision of the battle system was created here. Dantman 14:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle System 

message: I notice lots of users randomly making up theories about unreleased features. For instance, saying that there will be "skin kits". That was a glitch taken advantage of by the CSS coding. This was a lot better off as a stub. It is a cesspool of illiteracy. 70.160.99.244
:I think there should be one section for the flash/shockwave games, the arena doesn't need individual subsections, plot could be condensed, and the shop list could be removed. The top of the article looks decent, it seems people keep adding increasingly crufty content to the bottom. We don't need a subsection for each little feature. 
:Hoo, at first I thought this was for the talk page being too big. It's larger than the article!131.7.52.17 17:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit too large. 

message: OK, I'm being bold in my edits, so please bear with me. I removed the notability tag from the main article. There has been no serious discussion about Gaia not being notable in months. Further, the topic clearly passes both the Google and Alexa tests. The notability guidelines, being guidelines, are not set in stone, and I believe the topic has a clear hold on the claim of notability. However, I invite serious discussion here if anyone thinks the notability tag should go back up on the main article. --Zippy 05:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One addition - User:Ste4k, who I believe represented the "not notable" side on this discussion page, is blocked indefinitely from editing the Wikipedia according to their user page. --Zippy 06:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: GaiaOnline is clearly notable. The user who stuck that notability tag up there was probably a troll. Fairy Incognito 08:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this is an assertion of notability (see WP:WEB, which explains the notability criteria for things on the web.  Notability is not subjective, there are clearly defined criteria, at least in this category.  It being a guideline is mostly irrelevant because a lot of the people who are familiar with the guideline follow it.): "As of 25 October 2006, Gaia is the largest English language forum on the Internet in terms of users and posts".  However, there's no source.  I think this really needs a citation (along with large parts of the article, but this one in particular).  ColourBurst 02:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Added cite for "largest forum" claim. --Zippy 09:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability tag removed 

message: *This article is almost entirely original research.  I highly suggest the editors involved in this article clean this thing up.  If you'd rather have me get rid of all the unverifiable OR, drop me a message and I'll gladly do it.  Wickethewok 21:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research

message: I looked at the demographic and it didn't look right. The demographic lists a source but doesn't seam to use the actual information given.
It states: "Around 58% of users are 18-21, 26% in the 13-16 range, and the other 16% are 12 and under or 20 and older. There are also some users as old as 60+, although the aforementioned age group isn't seen as often on the forums."
But the Demographic it lists at  gives the 13-16 range 58%, 17-20 26%, 21-24 as 6%, and 24+ and 12- respectively have 5% each.
Either the demographic should match the source given, or the source should be removed and proper citation for the demographic should be given, cause as it is, it looks like someone made a vanity edit for their age group. Dantman 03:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one else is replying on what the real source for the current article is, I'm just going to fix it so that the demographic matches the one cited. Dantman 20:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, it seams someone has already fixed the section but I didn't catch it. Dantman 20:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inacuracy from Citation 

message: Jebus, it had two sections and several references! How much should this warrent?131.7.52.17
  I'd say not much. It just started, and it's already down.Katthevamp 16:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quest System 

message: There were some remaining vandalism bits, the details box was a bit small, so just detailing reasons and reverts here:
(PS: I did this all in one go by reverting to a older version by Escarbot)
Revert changes can be seen by comparing these versions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaia_Online&diff=91243329&oldid=90963468
* "War of the Worlds" was added to the page for some unknown reason, there is no official statement to Halloween 2k6 and War of the Worlds being similar, but even so, it's not in the right place, shouldn't this be part of the context of the section, not the title. (Excuse me for this one, this wasn't actually intentional, but I could only revert to a valid edit by removing this one. Feel free to re-add it to the proper area if it has a purpose, but I'm not the editor to find that)
* Extra =='s that were disrupting the page but were left over from a vandal was removed by the revert.
* Extra lines above Criticism and it's extra =='s was removed.
* Tektek link was removed again (Previous arguments have deemed this link not to be suitable for the article, also someone added "Sister-site" to the title of the link, and that's just plain false, it's a fan site with tools that have no use to a article reader.)
Dantman 00:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert A 

message: "They also give donors in-game rewards of limited-edition gifts."
I think this should definitly be reworded seeing as the Administrators announced that your "donations" were now just being considered buying monthly collectables. Whether it was merely for legal reasons or not, they made it pretty clear that you were buying the item, rather than donating, and then recieving the item as a gift. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.21.174.92 (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Term 

message: Some Content from Monthly Collectibles was removed:
Monthy Collectables prices tend to inflate the fastest of items in Gaia, ranging from 1.5 million to over 10 million for donation items from 2003. The most expensive donation/collectable item is the first one, the Angelic Halo, though it is the least versatile. There is no upper limit on its price - assuming an owner chooses to part with the item to begin with. Many users donate large amounts of (real world) money to profit from selling them on the site, making them a major part of Gaia. Monthly Collectables are highly sought after, due to their rarity and ability to be worn by avatars in many ways.
I don't know if this should actually be removed. The facts that some of the 2003 items reach past 10 million gold in price is true, and the parts of inflation and the lack of a upper limit on price. Dantman 04:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content Removal 

message: I removed this part of the article:
Around 58% of users are 13-16, 26% in the 17-20 range, 6% around 21 and 24, 5% less than 12, and 5% more than 24. There are also some users over 60, although the age group isn't seen as often on the forums. Gaia User Demographic for 2005
The source that it cited on these numbers was a thread on Gaia. The poster stated that this was the only "official" report, but since this user is not affiliated with Gaia and did not gather these numbers, nor did she say where she got these numbers, I would not call her a reliable source. This part of the article also didn't mention that these statistics are from well over a year ago, so it is not appropriate to use the present tense, which misleads the reader to think that those statistics still hold true, barring the aforementioned questionability of the numbers.
This also falls under the Wikipedia guideline on reliable sources, which says not to cite bulletin board messages as sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DroEsperanto (talk • contribs) 21:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, it doesn't state the year in the image. But the source is actually from Gaiaonline http://graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/mediakit/mediakit_04_demographics.gif it's even on one of their servers. Dantman 05:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed unvarifiable user demographic statistics 

message: I added the cleanup tag because much of the article seems to be various pieces of irrelevant information about Gaia that other editors (good-natured as they may be) added. This does to comply with the Wikipedia guideline on What Wikipedia is not.
I added the other tag because much of the article does not cite sources on things it should (for example, the NPC list was removed more than once for this reason, as was the Plot sections). There are also several things that cannot have sources cited for them because they are blatant opinions or personal experiences (which are not facts), and hopefully, this will help to fix this in the future.
DroEsperanto 21:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the NPC list, wouldn't the fact that they actually exist as NPC user accounts which can only be created as NPC's as admins be proof of NPC existance. And as for Christmas, the note was placed before it, but alien's and Christmas together has been foreshadowed by the admins in a newsletter  and in a NPC interview . Dantman 06:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added cleanup and unreliable sources tags 

message: I removed it. It has been uncited for half a year, and I don't think it's possible to cite it, because all it was, I think, were opinions held by its authors, which is in violation of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. If you think that the criticism section does belong there, feel free to start it back up again, as long as you cite sources when you do so again. Otherwise, it looks to readers as if it's just a place for Gaians on Wikipedia to kvetch about stuff they don't like, whether or not that's the case. It's also pretty unencyclopedic.  DroEsperanto 13:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: I'm noticing a trend in the sections of the articles for someone to build up the description of the topic in question, then instantly drop down with a negative factor in a way that seams to use opinions to lower the view of something. I'm thinking we should reformat all the sections to give out purely encyclopedic descriptions of the topics, then place any negative factors or citable critiques in a new, cited Critisism section. Dantman 06:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The view dropping may only be in a section or two, but other than that I'm also noticing topics to instantly change from a descroption to an illiterate comment. Should we revert any edits in which someone only adds a sentence instead of making proper content from now on? Dantman 06:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content Moving 

message: The article was just starting to gain some literacy and starting to look like an actual encyclopedia article. Now a new uncited criticism section has been added. Which states things that are easily picked out as opinions of random members of the site instead of facts. And it even throws in namedropping. Not to mention one editor is using comments wherever she adds or rewrites something and putting the original content into comments (not needed in a wiki because of the page history). What are we going to do to keep the article literate? Dantman 22:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Assume good faith, first of all. They were probably just trying to help, but didn't know the right way. As for the comments, those are fine; it's not harming the article, although I would advise against it. As for what can be done? Do your best to fix it, and put an appropriate User Talk message templates in their user talk page, if appropriate. But again, remember to Assume Good Faith! I'm working on a MAJOR re-write/edit of the article as we speak, by the way. I hope to take out a lot of the un-encyclopedic information. DroEsperanto 18:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again 

message: I finally got around to checking this article out, DroEsperanto.  Nice job cleaning it up.  If I may make a suggestion, I'd say the "Shops" section needs to be removed/reduced.  As a reader who has never used Gaia Online, this section adds nothing to my knowledge of Gaia online.  I'd recommend removing the list and replacing it with prose describing what shops are in general and maybe giving a couple examples.  Long lists in articles are not informative to non-players (does it enhance my knowledge of the subject by knowing that Gambino Hat Rack is run by Ruby and Peyo?  This is incredibly forgettable/trivial information thats not really encyclopedic).  I'd also recommend merging the PM section into the forums section, as PM-ing is generally a forum function.  Wickethewok 07:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestions! DroEsperanto 17:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A couple suggestions

message: Someone Changed Monthly Collectibles to Donation Items, which I'd like to remind, is not the name anymore.  They Officialy changed it to Monthly Collectibles because of legal issues.
Also, there was some discussion on the removal of the Popularity section and someone just added it back in teh worng area without making any statements on the talk page. I pushed the page back a bit to get rid of the change of donation items to monthly collectibles, and in the process the popularity section also got chopped out. I think we should talk about that section before anyone decides to add it back just because they think it belongs. Dantman 07:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need a popularity section, but we should have a brief mention of how big the forum is (just something a sentence long is all we'd need). DiscordantNoteCntrbtns 07:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Donation Items/Monthly Collectibles | Popularity 

message: I noticed multiple Impropper additions to the article again. I basicaly this time used a comparason of the current article to the last one I had, and pasted the valid content back in so those sections weren't reverted. Listed changes here:
* Vandalism Revert on change to 'Go-Gaia'.
* Removed content added to the forums section because it consisted mostly of removed content blended with the kind of stuff a vandal puts in.
* Chopped out the comment: "Some users use the PM system as a way to avoid getting banned while cybering."
* Someone changed the October 2006 listed in the games section to january 2007 even though they made no change to the listings of games and no games have been added. So that was misinformation. Unless someone comes up with a valid edit on that.
* Removed the General Discussion Section which was obvious vandalism and dosen't even fit as a valid part of the article becuase individual forums don't deserve sections and it wasen't even part of or near the forums section.
* Someone removed Naruto's Headband from "Anime-inspired items, designed to closely..." even though the steel plated headband is known to be a item inspired from there.
* Another part of the Monthly Collectibles section was removed so it's been added back.
* I made sure that when I pulled the revert the edit to the arena section wasen't removed.
Aparently someone made a mass revert to vandalism back to my edit, so all the reverts I were making was already reverted, so all I really did was add the valid content about the arenas was added back.
I've seen that some other articles are semi-protected so that new users can't edit them. A lot of our vandalism, and edits that have already been deamed to not fit are made by those types of users. Anyone consider this article to be semi-protected? Dantman 23:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd pretty strongly vote against protection. If you look at the semi-protection policy page, one of items listed under "When not to use semi-protection" is "To prohibit anonymous editing in general", which is (essentially) what you're saying. The reason most pages are semi-protected is that banned vandals will come back to vandalize a page as an anon or with a fleet of new accounts after content disputes and whatnot. This isn't really one of those times, I think. Doing so would kind of be unfair to all the anon/new users who have made constructive or good-faith edits to the article. Speaking of good faith, a lot of the items you listed seemed to be good faith edits that just weren't in the style of Wikipedia (or were just superfluous information). If you could see the editor trying to be constructive by making the edit (like they're adding information to the article that may be trivial but could, to someone who's kinda new to Wiki, be seen as notable), you should do your best to Assume Good Faith and change/edit the page to how you think it might be better. If you think it's something totally ridiculous (like, totally) or obvious vandalism/nonsense (like "Lhflsadhg315hlgslaf" or "PENIS!!!"), then revert it and put a tag on their user-talk page. As of right now, I think most of the anon edits are made by people who just want to put what they think into the article which, although it's OR that isn't allowed on wikipedia, isn't screaming vandalism. When you see stuff that makes you think "Oh, God," just take a deep breath and assume they're doing it because they think it's making the article better.  —DroEsperanto 23:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More Mass Changes

message: If someone knows how to do it, fix the caption for the Monthly Collectable image.--Imaginationac 20:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monthly collectables caption cut off