Talk:Spore (2008 video game)/External Link Discussions and Disputes

message: I changed the link to Spore World after the anonymous person changed it to Spore Universe by mistake (I just wanted to change the description). Spore World is pretty dern devoid of content, and is horrible site in terms of layout. I don't see a good reason to put it back in... -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:03, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
There are rules against self promotion.
The person who is continiously re-adding these links is likely tied to them.  It is a crappy site with crappy content on a game that has not even been released. All it is trying to do is leach popularity.
Can you imagine how crappy wikipedia would be if any shmuck could make a junk shell of a website and link it as a fan to the topic.
thus, stupid link deleted again.
--anonymous
Shouldn't there be one fansite though? 'Spore Universe' had been there since June 2005 and I don't see any reason to delete it now.
--aa2
:Should the site show demonstrable content, or become a signifigant place of fan activity, then I would support it's inclusion. As it is, Wiki is not about being a web ring or link depository, and while the site is not unrelated, it is largely overtaken by other examples. Things change though, so should they change for the better I'm certain it will be included. Robovski 00:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. It has to have unique content or a significant member count. Otherwise it's just another page that some guy put up. We can't be linking every page that mentions the game, or the links section would take more space than the whole of the rest of the article. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently undergoing an edit war. I don't have time to keep checking today. If someone would report this if it continues, I'd appreciate it. --Kickstart70·Talk 23:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spore World / Spore Universe 

message: SporeWiki.com was removed from the list of links on the 3rd by a contributor with only that as an edit.  It's entirely possible it was a way of trying to stop sporewiki from getting the hits that other sites wanted from wikipedia but didn't deserve due to them not being useful for an outside link.  SporeWiki is most definitly worthy of an outside link because it has information that can only be found there, and information that can be found other places, but it is far better organized and easy to understand on sporewiki.  Will Wright has sent an email to me telling me that he actually looks over the stuff on sporewiki occasionally (as he does with gaming steve), but that's not the point.  SporeWiki was for a while the only place that had the full GDC '05 video and for actually IS the host of the full downloadable file that is listed here.  It clearly deserves the attention of getting a named link, and I don't think it was ever justified to have it removed.  What does everyone else think? Chris M. 07:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Worth noting: The sporewiki doesn't seem to be running any ads. Tlogmer 09:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It isn't, thanks for pointing that out. Chris M. 12:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I oppose removing SporeWiki's link as it's a highly relevant community. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I haven't checked out the site myself, but I do agree that a link to a more specific wiki can be a useful supliment to an article; however, one thing I've been wondering is what do you do when there's the case of multiple wikis on the same subject? --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the same thing that is done when there are mutliple fansites on the same subject: link to every one that is good, up to a reasonable number. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I had been to SporeWiki before, and I hadn't realized the link was removed from the article. I support SporeWiki's inclusion in the links section as there was useful and signifigant content. Robovski 00:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I've stated it before, but I'll put it here again because a anonymous user involved with another fansite has been removing the SporeWiki link. I support SporeWiki's inclusion based simply on its status as an openly editable Wiki. However, it has nothing in it about its copyright status. It is still a larger project at this point than the competing wiki, though (which also has nothing on copyright). -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's now under the GFDL (see ). --163.1.136.55 11:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was considering taking back what I said in support of the site based on the lack of license, but no longer. Thanks. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 18:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SporeWiki.com 

message: Can I call for action against the IP User:65.189.214.222?  His only contributions to the spore page were removing sporewiki's link 3 times and adding xspores.  Those were near his only contributions on wikipedia in general.  He posted once on the talk and while it was a fair post, it by no means resulted in any such consensus as his actions would suggest.  He clearly isn't listening or discussing before taking action and has removed a link that consensus has agreed should be added and he has been told that.  Shouldn't there be some kind of action to stop this kind of thing? Chris M. 15:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Action against IP 65.189.214.222 

message: For this edit threatening to violate WP:POINT, User:WikiStylee has been blocked 1 month from editing Wikipedia. RadioKirk talk to me 21:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Action against [[User:WikiStylee]]

message: For the "Win a free copy of Spore here" link: We will remove this when the contest is over, please allow it to stay.  This will be something spore fans would like to stumble across. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.29.216.200 (talk • contribs) .
:We can't allow the link to remain. Wikipedia is not for advertising of any kind, even kinds that we might like. (See our policy, appropriately called What Wikipedia is not.) The link cannot stay and will be removed. I hope you will respect this and not re-add it. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contest External Link

message: Would you consider Hookedonspore.com? Their USP is that, by participating in the forums, you can collect all sorts of items found in the game (Planets, Creatures, Vehicles, Microbe's etc.). It also is kept rigidly clean of spammers. As a result, the forum is far more active than the other forums (with the possible exception of Sporeum.com, which is also very active). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.173.56.130 (talk • contribs) 
:Gamingsteve has an even bigger forum ( 73,170 Posts vs 10,000ish) which contains much more relevant posts (around 40% of those 10,000 posts have nothing to do with Spore based on the category they're in) and I'm not sure whether or not the item system (I assume like a gallery of virtual items with a simple post to win system, which isn't very unique) would count as a unique feature making it distinct from other Spore fansites. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 23:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HookedonSpore.com 

message: I see xSpore is back in the fansite list. Previous consensus was that this didn't warrant inclusion. I haven't simply removed the link again as I'm willing to see what general opinion is at now on the inclusion of other fansites. My opinion is basically unchanged - xSpore isn't a bad site. That said, it isn't as busy as GamingSteve, and I don't want this to become a link depository. Robovski 23:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: xSpore offers nothing useful that and the ones already linked don't already provide as far as I know. Unless it offers a unique and useful service or is particularly notable (which I don't think it is) I don't think it needs to be linked to. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 00:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, that's a day later, I'm going to remove it. If anyone thinks they have a good reason to include it or some other link, please speak up here before putting it in the article. Robovski 22:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  xSpore.com 

message: Currently considered Resolved.  The Wii version / port / spinoff / delicious cake / etc will stay in the other sections area, next to Spore Creatures and Spore Mobile, until more information can be gained about it.
May be resolved.  JAF1970 believes that the publisher should release a press release before the Wii version is added to the article proper.  KiTA believes that the information currently available merits inclusion.  Current version -- with the Wii mentioned under the "Console Versions" section -- seems to be acceptable by both parties.
:* May be resolved, as the current version contains this information, in the Spinoff/Console/Ports/etc section.
::* It's resolved. It seems the Wii version will probably not be the same game as the main version - it's actually probably going to be Spore Creatures, which is another reason to keep that article intact. Incidentally, this is why I didn't allow the Wii version to be under platforms in the first place. It was probably that the Wii would not be able to handle the scope of the full game. For one, the Wii has no hard drive. JAF1970 (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * I concur, the current version of the Wii mention seems acceptable, and it's highly likely that the "Spore Wii" version of the game will go out under the Spore Creatures title.  Anyone else agree/disagree?  KiTA (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * I think the current mention of the Wii is fine.  I just hope it doesn't get bloated with speculation and every mention of it in an interview. (Unless of course, substantial info is released about it.) Nanobri (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *It's fine as is. It satisfies the desire for some contributors to acknowledge explicitly a Wii version, but also keeps it off to the side til something definitive occurs. JAF1970 (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wii Version (Resolved) 

message: Ongoing.  JAF1970 believes that these belong in secondary, external articles.  Sillygostly believes that these should be merged into the main article, with redirects for the secondary articles.
:* Idea for resolution:  What does official Wikipedia policy say about such sub-articles?
::*There's no need to do anything about it. Just added new information about Spore Creatures as it grows. Same will happen with Spore (mobile). And if the Wii version is indeed Spore Creatures... JAF1970 (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Incidentally, all of my work in the last 18 months has been to keep Spore a candidate as a good article. Fattening it with all the stuff now in Spore Creatures and Spore (mobile) would ruin that - and lead to - guess what? - new article creation. The article AS IT IS is already pushing the "too long" article limit, and it's fat-free. So either have them as seperate articles NOW, or do it later. It's that simple. JAF1970 (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * I oppose a merger.  I think there is sufficent information already to warrant the articles being separate, and I think more information is likely to come out as well. Nanobri (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

text: * I also oppose a merger, whether or not those two articles need to be merged into a single article, however, will need to be discussed closer to release time on the appropriate pages! --Samtheboy (t/c) 20:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Why? Those articles are seperate and very different games. JAF1970 (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Spore Creatures / Spore Mobile Merger (Resolved)