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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Starships!]] is up for deletion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Prods (May 2007)

message: Regarding this image used in , 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Image concern  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Battrick Cup]] 

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

text: 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 (), 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Habbo Hotel]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done! To discuss further, please see WT:MMO/GW. Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 00:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guild Wars task force 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Deep breath, cucumbers, and all that. Marasmusine 20:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MU* games and notability 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Articles in need of attention 

message: How do I enlist myself in this project? :O - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 17:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hmm. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Image:Jubjub.gif 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. MarašmusïneTalk 09:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Habbo Hotel disputed 

message: Is this page being maintained?  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)
thread_title:  MMOGCM 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Final Fantasy XI Featured Article Candidate 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External Wiki Link Standard 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dead links 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Neopets]] 

message: :: --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed for deletion: Avalon, the Legend Lives 

message: 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)
replies: text:  --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article for deletion: List of Neopets

message: :: --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for Deletion: Enemy groups in City of Heroes and City of Villains 

message: :: --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article for deletion: Guiding Hand Social Club 

message: :: --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article for deletion: Deliantra (computer game) 

message: 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)
thread_title: Wurm Online

message: :: --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article for deletion: Lusternia, Age of Ascension 

message: Tribal Wars keeps on being deleted. What is going on?
KevinJi9 (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article for deletion: [http://www.tribalwars.net/ Tribal Wars] 

message: 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)
thread_title: AfD nomination of Flintlocke's Guide to Azeroth

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Mind if I have a look too? CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Heh, the more the merrier :) Gazimoff (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New editor could use some help 

message: 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  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)
thread_title: WP MMO: Articles of unclear notability

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 WriteRead 18:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inactive? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

message: 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)
thread_title:  Coordinators' working group