Talk:Neopets/Archive 4

message: The Good article nomination for Neopets has failed
:I find this article has too many disputes. Too much POV to be a good article.
 Computerjoe's talk 18:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please be a little more specific, so we can work on all of the problematic parts? --AySz88^-^ 04:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Though the Controversy is clearly well-maintaned, you can still see traces of POV. Computerjoe's talk 14:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Good articles|Good Article]] [[Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations|nomination]] has failed 

message: This article is about 59 kilobytes long. The Criticism section is about 6 pages long. Perhaps it deserves its own article? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Computerjoe's talk 16:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea. It's good enough where it is. Ixistant 22:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long article and Criticism section. 

message: As an analog to Wookieepedia- the Star Wars Wiki, has anyone thought of making a Neopets wiki? Wockypedia would be perfect. --Shultz IV 11:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Pinkpt has made a neopets wiki. I'll see if I can find the link.Here we go. It cuurently isn't very good though and hence not referenced to. J.J.Sagnella 16:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, someone already tried making a Neopets Wiki -- and it failed. This is where it was rejected. (It's number three on that list) Funnybunny (talk/QRVS) 04:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, that was rejected because it was a duplicate of this wiki at wikia, which was created.  As far as I know, none of the Neopets wikis have gotten very far yet. --AySz88^-^ 04:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The NeoDex at http://www.pinkpt.com/neodex/ looks to be growing rather fast with more Neopians beginning to use it and adding/editing articles as such. Snapshot: As of Monday, 29 May 2006 at 18:38 there were 759 articles on the NeoDex. A pretty big jump from 200 from the previous month. I guess we'll see how good it gets - but so far, looks the most promising.--139.168.3.208 18:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wockypedia- the Neopets Wiki" 

message: I have a neopets website I am setting up. May I put it under neopets websites? --Laura 22:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alas, on wikipedia we only add links to sites with good content which are already high-traffic. But we wish you lots of Luck for your site. J.J.Sagnella 12:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks anyways. Once its fast-traffic, I will post again. --Laura 22:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Favorite Neopets websites

message: Could I add the high traffic Dlaa.net, which is a Neopets Adoption Agency? I believe it has the second highest number of traffic as an adoption agency.
:Sorry, but it has too little traffic and does not meet the need of why we have links on Wikipedia. We have links so people can go to it if they have finished reading the article and would like more information on the subject, with a level of detail too specific for an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, adoption agencies don't meet the need and hence have no point. J.J.Sagnella 06:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you at least give a reference which proves its traffic statistics? Anyone can make up a large number. While I'm prepared to believe you, it won't go in unless you can show its high traffic. --Tim 20:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Looking at  this We can see clearly the link is overpowered on traffic and content by the other links without a question of a doubt. This site has never had a daily reach higher than a million.J.J.Sagnella 20:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alexa? Computerjoe's talk 20:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: As said Alexa provides proof. For example, Dlaa.net. Computerjoe's talk 07:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry but Wikipedia is not a link farm or a billboard. Anymore than 4 would be starting to go into Link Farm territory. And if we add this one link then who is to say if we should add say,200 links? Unless you can give a reasoned argument to remove or change one of the links, i'm afraid the answer is no. J.J.Sagnella 14:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: IMO no:Look at this graph . Computerjoe's talk 14:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry Good Point. Changed. J.J.Sagnella 19:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I know it was a silly typo.. J.J.Sagnella 21:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Nope. J.J.Sagnella 12:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: ; I've removed jellyneo.net due to the fact it doesn't really appear special compared to the other sites and is the weakest. Pretty much everything on that site can be found on other sites. If anyone objects, I'll bring jellyneo.net back though. J.J.Sagnella 21:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't feel that this would be considered a "fansite". Though it is a useful tool (and I will personally be trying it) it doesn't seem to be notable enough to be considered a "Selected Fansite". Kalani [talk] 23:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Although Jsholm is probably a fan, I can see where one could possibly make a distinction between his site and a fan site. Still, I think this type of resource would be of value to those that would visit this page. A possible method of inclusion for this site is to put it under a new heading for auxiliary tools and programs. I’ve seen a decent number of sites that have simple programs or scrips on them that sell items for you, visit the snowager, run timers, collect interest, etc. a compilation of these sites would be very useful. Also, anyone have a problem with me temporarily removing Jellyneo if it isnt up by tomorrow? I'm not sure how long it has been down. Wirewood Shadow 00:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely. Please Remember the purpose of External Links on Wikipedia, to give extra information, too specific for an encyclopedia. So really we're looking for things like really detailed guides to games, really detailed stuff in general. J.J.Sagnella 08:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, it seems that jellyneo is down for good. I'll remove it, but if anyone objects I'll being it back up. J.J.Sagnella 08:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Selected Fansites

message: I would like to raise the following question: are petpages really called webbies? I do not know very much about Neopets. Invitatious 23:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rarely heard a petpage called a "webbie". Kalani [talk] 00:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think I have heard be called tham once or twice, but definitely not very often. J.J.Sagnella 06:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It kinda sounds like a short form of "website" (in general).  Googling "neopets webbie", it looks like there are a lot of references to "guild webbies" and such.  I doubt it's just specific to petpages. --AySz88\^-^ 04:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: As a general rule, petpages are called petpages, and webbie is used almost exclusively for guild websites. When a guild website is hosted on (a) petpage(s) then it is often still called a webbie. Hope that helps. --Tim (talk), (contribs) 15:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are petpages called webbies? 

message: The "accused plagiarism" section states that "Games, such as "Turmac Roll," "Warf Rescue Team," and "Nimmo's Pond," are similar to Orisinal's "Panda Run," "These Little Pigs," and "Hydrophobia""
This is outrageous. Sure, Turmac Roll and Warf Rescue Team, maybe, but Nimmo's Pond is an Asteroids clone. Whatever this Hydrophobia is, let me point out that Asteroids was there first. --Bobadot 08:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the rules of Hydrophobia and Asteroids/Nimmo's Pond are fairly different - though they both feature frogs on lilypads.  Perhaps replace that example with "Hasee Bounce"-"It Takes Two".  (I distinctly remember that Orisinal's creator noted the similarity between the last two in the "news" section, but he soon took that down and I have to assume that he was somehow appeased.) --AySz88\^-^ 04:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nimmo's Pond stolen from Orisinal? 

message: I would like to submit the website www.neopetsfansite.com as one of the external link for neopets. this site has all the contents fans will need.  (Jerry Heller 00:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. The forum has only three members. J.J.Sagnella 08:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  neopetsfansite.com  

message: In the hacks and glitches section, there is a picture with the caption "A page from a letter allegedly sent to "InfamousX241" from Neopets/Viacom." However, there is no mention of InfamousX241 besides the picture and references 29, 30, and 31; which are all alone on an empty line. If InfamousX241 is going to be mentioned in references, there should be some information about him in the article.
I remember alot of info on him, maybe somebody got rid of it? Mightyxjess 07:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  InfamousX241 

message: I think that it should be readded as a fansite due to it being up and running for a while, and has releases os upcoming events relatively early.
Hello32020 23:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately it owuld be a better idea not to as Wikipedia's rules ask articles to have as fewer unofficial links as possible. Unfortunately jelllyneo's site traffic is lower than the other three and offers unfortunately nothing special, and if it has nothing special then i guess we are just listing fansites for the sake of listing them, and we could fill pages upon pages but that would be useless. J.J.Sagnella 10:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue that it is jellyneo that has something special, where the other fansites don't. PinkPT hasn't even updated in the last ten days, and Nothing But Neopets is only a rewrite of the news. Neither of them show how to get the latest avatar, or unreleased news. Jellyneo has both of those and is updated several times a day, and is even listed as the top site on PinkPT's topsite list, which is voted on by players. Where are you getting your traffic figures from? Jibbles | Talk 11:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I stand completely corrected if anyone wants to put it back in, I agree with them. J.J.Sagnella 13:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. In view of Nothing But Neopets low figures, and in keeping with your idea to keep as few unofficial links as possible, I have put it in place of NBN. Jibbles | Talk 14:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course bear in mind the ultimate goal and the ultimnate rule for Wikipedia and fansites is either ONE OR A TOPLIST. Let me know what you think of option 2. It might be better for the article, if we can find a good one. J.J.Sagnella 17:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, a toplist would be better. The two I know of are  and . I'd be happy with either. Jibbles | Talk 18:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, i don't think they'll do. We need one not owned by a website who is a fansite itself and ideally want to see the three current links on Wikipedia in the first 10. J.J.Sagnella 18:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jellyneo.net  

message: TheDailyNeopets.com is probably the fastest growing website with 15 new peices of content uploaded within the last two weeks, at least 1 a day, adding to tis 200+ pages of help and guides. It has slowly but surely gained traffic and whilst not as high as JellyNeo.net, has surpassed its daily traffic on some occasions (of late, it has been a fine contender; although JN had a huge gain in August due to a sitewide puzzle-plot and giveaways). It surpasses NeoLodge.com and NutinButEverything.com. For more info, check the Alexa Traffic Details comparing JN, NL, PinkPT, NBE, NNoN and TDN. I think it should be added onto the fansites list as it is a major contender to some sites, has a growing forum that has only been open for three weeks, has unique features - Safety Center, Alerts, Turmaculus Alert, Cyodrakes Gaze Plot section - and the vast content list is constantly growing. Any thoughts? 86.27.73.0 14:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any updates? I ead above about TheDailyNeopets being owned by PPT, and I don't know where the hell he heard that, but it's not true :P It was supported by PPT, who linked to it as a favor, but it is its own site, and is breaking off all connections altogether with PPT; owners had a feud. 86.27.73.0 10:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure it's quite at the same level as the other three yet, and I'd be more comfortable if it didn't occupy pretty much exactly the same niche as PPT or JellyNeo... Does it have any particular strength relative to those two? —AySz88\^-^ 04:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it has it's Safety Center, game guides that are not on any other site, a newbie guide, the only real indepth Cyodrakes Gaze section. Whilst they are not major strengths, its actively working on two unique sections: Full, indepth Premium section, very much like Letos petpage, which has now shutdown, and was the premier resource for everything Premium. This section is under development (I personally am doing it, this is the Head of Content speaking, hence the complete lack of NPOV :P) and will take over Leto's source as the best around, which has been approved by Leto. Also, three staff members are currently scanning in the last three issues of Neopets Magazine, and a very unique feature is the fact that we'll offer parts of the magazine online to view. We're the only site to offer this. 86.27.73.0 16:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a comment, scanning in pages from the Neopets magazine might be breaking some sort of copyright. Lmblackjack21 17:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Just In My opinion, we should not link to it. We can't just link to websites as they are nearly equalling the current. Wikipedia's rules dictate either one fansite or one fansite directory, so we're trying to gte it down to one of those 2. J.J.Sagnella 17:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Include TheDailyNeopets.com on links 

message: Click this link and you'll see details of a reliable source you can use in the Neopets article.  That link leads to part of the WP:CVG project to create an archive of available offline magazine sources.  If you would like a copy of the article, just contact the user specified via User talk or by email, and a scan of the article will be returned.
In this case, the user is me.  The magazine article is a 4 page-ish article on the Neopets phenomenon published by the Telegraph Magazine (magazine of the Daily Telegraph).  It's a pretty good read, and provides verifiable information from a reliable source. - Hahnchen 03:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be frank, I must comment that I would not use The Daily Telegraph as a good source for anything, due to bad experiences with biased articles back when I was watching Philip Pullman closely.  However, I don't know whether the single article in question is as biased as what I've seen before, particularly because Neopets is (I think) a lot less liberal than Pullman.  —AySz88\^-^ 04:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  On second thought, even a poorly argued article can serve as citing for (poorly argued) concerns about Neopets. —AySz88\^-^ 04:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Daily Telegraph carries a right wing bias, that's obvious.  I'm not sure exactly how that would affect Phillip Pullman article (I remember an excellent article in which Pullman debated Dr Rowan Williams on the subject of religion though).  The Neopets article features in the magazine, there's no real subtext, nor is it an advert of some sort.  It does feature interviews and covers the history of the site/company. - Hahnchen 04:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: What was the debate over the Pullman article about?  Any links?I also didn't realise that the Willams/Pullman debate was archived online, which you can see here. - Hahnchen 04:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the source is considered reliable, I think we should add it as a reference. Hahnchen has sent me some scans of the magazine articles through e-mail, and having played Neopets for 5 years, I can check the accuracy of any information in the magazine article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Well, "right-wing bias" can pretty much tell you everything you need to know about the nature of the problems with Pullman articles; it wasn't really a "debate" over the articles, just something I noticed as a fan of Pullman.  I was kinda worried about them making a big deal out of Scientology....  Alright, I'll take a look at the Neopets article. :)  —AySz88\^-^ 23:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need any more good sources?  Here's one. 

message: I think there should be a page on how that neopet fansites came and went. And how they handled the new neopets polices. And mention great old fansite which have now gone like neonewsnow(the old owner), neoanon, dizzyneo. Since theses should be added since they are what created the main unoffical communty.82.4.149.205 21:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like this can't be created on Wikipedia, because it has a policy of No original research.  If it is created elsewhere, it might then be cited here, but nothing here is supposed to be original research. —AySz88\^-^ 23:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Page 

message: I'm just surprised nobody's compared Neopets to Pokemon.At least not here.Just a thought.-R.G. 02:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There used to be a description of the battledome as "Pokémon-like" but I think it was (or should be) removed, since it's not really true.  I don't think something like that would really help the Wikipedia article on Neopets. —AySz88\^-^ 23:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neopets vs Pokemon?

message: Particularly in the "Controversy" section, a LOT of information isn't sourced. For example, "A user with the name "Ad0" once was able to hack into the site, and mess up many pets statistics, something Neopets said was caused by a misfiring lab ray, but no one is certain."
Where did this come from? 124.177.40.35 07:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some anonymous users keep messing around with that paragraph - I'm waiting for the activity to die down some more so that I can (hopefully) quietly remove the whole mess from the article.  That section really doesn't belong here.  —AySz88\^-^ 02:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources not cited

message: The criticism section is larger then the mian section. It need to eb shortened. Half that stuff no one even cares about anyways and isn't true.
"Neopets has low security compared to yahoo and google"
I have to disagree... neopets is extremely secure. Boo, it has glitches sometimes. Wikipedia goes DFM almost every day. Most large websites do.
It doesnt matter does it? Neopets is full of criticisms, that should be noted i would think. Mightyxjess 07:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism too long