Talk:IGN/Archive 1

message: The Wikipedia entry for IGN should theoretically be segregated for IGN Entertainment, the corporate entity and IGN.com the website. If you do not know the difference, please only refer to IGN as IGN.com. Thanks!
:I'd always thought that IGN meant Internet Gaming Network, is this wrong? JayKeaton 16:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No IGN's official name is just IGN. Also the corporate identity is IGN, they are one and the same. Jedi6 21:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Corporate Errata

message: Is there a reason why there's an entire category of stubs devoted to different aspects of IGN, when the main article is so small to begin with?  If no one has any real objections, I'm thinking about merging everything into the main (this) article.  - Lifefeed 19:28, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
:Go ahead. Fredrik | talk 19:54, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like there is enough content to make a seprate article for IGN's message board system. Can I unmerge it? Reub2000 12:41, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Topic Merge

message: Not long after this was unprotected, it was vandalised. I don't know why this was unprotected in the first place. Reub2000 03:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protect Again 

message: "IGN has moderators who are better than the regular users whether they are Insiders or Outsiders. Moderators are frequently smarter than the average user and ban users simply to improve the userbase population."
However true this might be, isn't it in need of some re-phrasing?
I totally agree. This is worded a LITTLE offensively.
I've been on IGN for six years now and I can tell you that this is complete idiocy. Probably entered in by one of IGN's own sub-par mods. Mods on IGN are exactly like all the other users. You get your share of good ones and you get more than your share of idiots. For every moderator that is reasonable and fair there is one who is childish and petty. (The frequently unmodded and remodded Namlas comes to mind for the latter.)
My best friend is a moderator. (We're all so proud.) JaredW! 12:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smarter Moderators? 

message: I have another high critic about IGN: the reviews. IGN ign likes to give high scores to many games, not justifing the defects of a game properly. --Mateusc 00:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: I've unprotected to see if the vandals have given up.  Hopefully the other editors haven't. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:17, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected

message: Is there a reason this was removed? Mga 00:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Icons section 

message: I fail to see how a section on the biggest board on IGN isn't relevant. Mga 4 July 2005 22:43 (UTC)
: Since IGN Vestibule redirects here, I am adding this section back in. Mga 05:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vestibule 

message: Heavy amounts of vandalism, also this keeps getting deleted:
===The IGNCB===
The IGNCB, or IGN Community Board, opened on September 11th, 2000, for "non-video game related content" that was beginning to appear on the video game discussion boards. Renowned for their high brow wit and strong elitism the IGNCB are one of the most hated boards on IGN, although the members of the board seem take pride in this.
This page will be locked unless the vandalism stops now. DJ Clayworth 20:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock again 

message: The IGNCB, or IGN Community Board, opened on September 11th, 2000, for "non-video game related content" that was beginning to appear on the video game discussion boards. Renowned for their high brow wit and strong elitism the IGNCB are one of the most hated boards on IGN, although the members of the board seem take pride in this.
This page will be locked unless the vandalism stops now. DJ Clayworth 20:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The IGNCB

message: The article says According to Big-boards.com, the IGN Boards are ranked 3, behind FaceTheJury at 2 and GaiaOnline at 1. There are currently over 100,000,000 posts. But is big-boards.com really a recognized authority about message boards?   My initial observation was no, and the reference in the article seemed almost like advertising for an otherwise relatively unknown top sites list.
Yes, big-boards.com has a ranking system, and appears to rank some boards, it is not entirely clear to me what criteria they use by default (and how valid or widely recognized their listing is), they seem to keep database entries on number of posts and Alexa ranking.. I wonder how they get their information, especially for sites like Slashdot, which I have not seen publishing statistics like post counts.  Are FaceTheJury and GaiOnline really more popular than IGN?  GaiaOnline has an Alexa ranking of 1,590, and FaceTheJury 4,654, which both pale in comparison to IGN's 239.
 
Big-boards.com has no Wikipedia article and an Alexa ranking of 21,402. I suppose it may be a recognized authority and I missed it somehow, but surely having a listing that includes IGN in it doesn't alone mean it should appear in an encyclopedia.. thoughts? --Mysidia (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Big-boards.com

message: This article violates Wikipedia policy by having many extern links within the article proper.  Extern links in the article are only allowed as cites [like this].  This article should trim all the extern links or changing them to cites where appropriate. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:56, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Line 100 says Meneo is greater than IGN according to a popularity poll but it doesn't cite the source. If someone does not give a source for this I will be removing it in 1 week - Amazon10x 21:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: In-article extern links

message: Some editors at IGN have requested they only appear on the staff list (one has asked to remain off the list). This has been done.
:Sorry but a posting from an anonymous user isn't proof that they don't appear here.  And even if they did that doesn't mean they can be removed because this is an encyclopedia so the truth stays over what the editors may want. Jedi6 05:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name removal 

message: My friends are all frequent posters on IGN, so I always here about it. Here are some interesting parallels between Wikipedia and IGN:
*Wikipedia's Jimbo can be compared to IGN's Tal.
*Wikipedia's "Cheers" is like IGN's "Woot!"
*Wikipedia's "Village Pump" is the civilized version of IGN's "Vestibule."
*Wikipedia's "Administrators" are like IGN's "Moderators"
*Wikipedia's "Vandalists" are IGN's "spammers"
*Wikipedia's "Newbies" are IGN's "Noobs"
I agree that there was no point in writing this section. I just wanted to point stuff out. JaredW! 18:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably can make those paralles to any thing. Jedi6-(need help?) 21:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: >x<ino 23:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: >x<ino 00:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You are crazy. Jedi6-(need help?) 00:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The I stood for "Imagine." The acronym doesn't currently stand for anything Tromboneguy0186 02:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IGN vs. Wikipedia 

message: Was IGN known as "International Gaming Network" for awhile, or am I crazy? Jamesinclair 23:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are crazy. Jedi6-(need help?) 00:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The I stood for "Imagine." The acronym doesn't currently stand for anything Tromboneguy0186 02:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IGN Name

message: Someone needs to add a list of the games that received perfect scores (like they did on gamespot's page). This helps the reader better understand the viewpoint of IGN.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.196.227 (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  IGN's official editorial rating info may be referred to here (- http:// games.ign.com/ratings.html -). I suggest you read it. [face_dancing] 64.41.179.238 (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perfect score list 

message: Any chance for a "critisism" section? I happen to know there are a very large number of people (A good deal of them on IGN's own message forums) that take issues on a regular basis with IGN's often times personally biased, unfair, badly written, and at times, rather childish and subtly ignorant "professional" reviews from their own staff on DVD's and Games that often cause an uproar, more than most such sites do.
Often, their reviews don't have to have any real reasoning or firm criteria. Such as a bile-filled and hateful review for the Kill Bill films that seemed largely preoccupied with self-proclaimingly "humiliating the fanboys" than it did on actually discussing the merits of the film. As well as the types of comments associated with referring to the Sonic The Hedgehog Saturday Morning DVD collection as simply "A badly made cartoon" (which angered it's very large and vocal fanbase), and flippant, unprofessional remarks made towards their personal views towards the fandom of certain games and dvd's rather than the material they are reviewing.
And the least of which is their very distasteful and overly arrogant attitude on moderation of their forums, often verbally lashing out at users for disagreeing with them and their methods and comments? Many users from IGN.com have been banned simply becuase one or two admins or professional site maintainers on IGN.com wish to save face on not being criticized, themselves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.242.41.219 (talk) 09:41, August 22, 2007 (UTC) 
They have had a criticism section here in the past but I guess the critical comments you talk about from the forums eventually came over here and they eventually removed it due to "vandalism".
I'm pretty angry with their blatant bias against the PS3, scoring games lower when most other sites aren't penalizing PS3 games if they aren't as good as the Xbox 360 version. I think their reviews are  very much how you described them. I don't use their site for movie reviews, though.
I never was banned as an Insider (May 2002-October 2005) but the moderators are a bunch of people who traded away their dignity to become yes-men to the administrators and many of the editors are rude, unfriendly egomaniacs who have zero respect for the people who pay their salaries.
I can't professionally say how much I detest IGN. I guess that's what my blog is for.
Brighat 22:19 September 19, 2007 (UTC)
First off, corrected "criticism"; second of all, adding a criticism section is opinion -- that's what your blogs are for. I think a more important addition/change is to get our damn names/titles up to date.
[face_dancing]
sng-ign
:::Yes, but that is still criticism none the less. What do you think critics do? They write reviews on what they think of the thing they are reviewing. Not to forget, most of the things IGN has said turned out to be false, and just about everyone out there don't trust their site. Opinion or not, many people think this and it should be mentioned. This is not a IGN-fan site, its wikipedia. If it were only a few people, it wouldn't need mentioning. But, this is more than just a few bunch of people. Not only, but there are much more things that people blame against IGN. This is all criticism. Pash Master (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Has it occured to you that as the editorial staff of IGN changes, their reviews on software will change? Bet you didn't FIGURE THAT OUT GENIUS. Using criticism to criticize another's criticisms on a neutral reference is more or less trolling -- or what GSIJago does when not working. [face_dancing] sng-ign  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.41.179.238 (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If an organisation has faced criticism or controversy in the past, then that IS encyclopedic and thus valid for Wikipedia, and is not Blog Material. And that remains a fact regardless of any agenda anyone may have. 134.115.68.21 (talk) 05:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section? 

message: Guys, an attack from behind has started, straight from the Vesti. Just a little heads ups. ~DEATHBRINGERMAN
:Semi protection of the article has been requested. Hopefully that will solve things. Cowman109Talk 02:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And protected, thanks to KimvdLinde. That solves that! Phew. Cowman109Talk 02:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that was fun wasn't it. Almost makes you glad to be alive. -- Steel 02:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some indefs on the way. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the swift response, KimvdLinde. Cowman109Talk 02:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are welcome, all three have been blocked indef (vandalism only accounts), and the IP for a week. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You deserve some credit too, Cowman. I'd have been overwhelmed by myself. -- Steel 02:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you all did a good job! -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cookies for everyone!  Cowman109Talk 02:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Now we just need to wait for the page to get re-protected now. It got unprotected when it was deleted. Cowman109Talk 02:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There! All fixed, at last. Cowman109Talk 02:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had to remove some personal info again. If someone cares, could they check the history if it is clean, otherwise, I will remove the remianing as well. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A few of the IP edits appear to bring up names again. this one, for example. I'm not sure if those are the edits in particular that you are speaking of though.. Cowman109Talk 03:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: We also have an accidental revert of a revert here. Cowman109Talk 03:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a good read through and I think that's all the vandalism removed. -- Steel 11:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was still substantial stuff that was borderline in the history, and I have moved aboyt 20+ revisions away again. It now reads ok. Better save than sorry with this. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism! 

message: Jeff Hall is no longer with IGN.com. Please remove him, or I'll do it when the article is no longer protected.
Mehgan Sullivan (new) is added to Gamestats.
Criticisms section is subjective; advise removal -- don't editorialise. That's our job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.41.179.238 (talk • contribs) 
:I agree that the criticisms section is POV. Both that and this Jeff Hall person have been removed. What exactly do you want done with Mehgam Sullivan? -- Steel 00:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Meghan's with Nix on Gamestats.com. Zoromski is the new EIC of tv.ign.com (2006). Brian Linder is still on FilmForce. This IP address should be Snowball's BTW. Not sure if that got changed by our IDC/IT dept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.41.179.238 (talk • contribs) 
Page unprotected. Looks like the attacks have stopped. Kimchi.sg 22:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Staff changes + 

message: I made an edit about well-known users that I think is relevant to the Vestibule, as anyone curious would be able to find out about fads and incidents involving other users.
Unfortunately, I don't have the edit saved anywhere, so unless you happen to have that edit, I'm going to have to remember as much as I can of what I added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.149.145.113 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't that be textbook original research?  Unless there's some sort of published material about this, it can't go in the article. Ace of Sevens 15:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone other than the site administrators (whoever they are) are notable enough to be included in the article. Suffers from OR anyway. -- Steel 17:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do you draw the line? That section would be constantly changing as people are banned for various offences or leave the network. A better thought -- link to the IGN blog / club area. That's what it's for *external link. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IGN busybody. 64.41.179.238 (talk • contribs) .
Except nobody uses the IGN blog/"club", dickweed. 69.61.190.221 23:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Wasn't me. [face_dancing] 64.41.179.238 (talk) 01:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well-known users 

message: Consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Vestibule (second nomination) was to merge and redirect it to this article. A couple of participants were concerned that not much of the content is worth keeping. I'll leave that to those more familiar with the topic, so here is the other page's edit history, have fun. — CharlotteWebb 23:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone with an account remove the merge notice in the Vestibule section. Sometimes it sucks being an anon :P --- 71.67.132.178 04:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will request unprotection. Nobody has merged anything from the article, so the tag may stay for now. -- ReyBrujo 05:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Vestibule]] 

message: I finally managed to get into the site, and it appears to have changed from Filmforce to Movies. So all IGN links are screwed now, and I still can't enter the site again! Any other reports as to what's going on? Wiki-newbie 20:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the movies section? 

message: Can someone fix the ref?--NFAN3 "I try so hard to be a Uber Geek!"~Jason Fox 18:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Soory, I'm stupid

message: What does that even mean?  That sounds far too slang-ish for my tastes, but having no personal experience with it I really can't suggest a way to alter it to sound better.
-- Last Thylacine 12:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  today the IGNCB no longer has a pulse. 

message: Shouldn't IGN and IGN Entertainment have different articles? --Simonkoldyk 19:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corp Site 

message: They said in the review for Secret Rings that it was, quote "The greatest 3D Sonic game ever". HOWEVER, it only got a 6.9, SAB2 got a 9.4. Now, theres a difference there. Someone on the forums pointed that out, and they responded with "they were dillusional as they were dazzled by the new 3D"
The graphics weren't "beautiful" for the time, they were PREVIOUS GEN grpahics, SAB2 was a port of a dreamcast game. when this was pointed out, the member was banned. I honestly hate IGN.
:Indented line
Remember when the Jump Button was fatally unresponsive? Anyone with half a brain and little sight would be able to tell they were actually very bad at it. Heck, even a child that never played Sonic would have figured Sonic Unleashed controls before making a dumb mistake like that.
I honestly question IGN's ability to review, specially considering they are blinded by smoke and mirrors and spits upon pixels. By that statement I mean: look at the poor feedback they gave to Ju-On. The only MAJOR flaw in that game are the CONTROLS. That's all. The story is alright, I remember back when you couldn't understand Metroid's story because the game itself gave no message other than end and items. Gameplay is good, disregarding controls, because the game gives INDIRECT HINTS. Haven't we seen indirect hints in games like Zelda (lone tree in nowhere), Final Fantasy (Hall of Titans), Metroid (enemy walks into walls that soon you learn that are fake and safe)? Same happens in Ju-On. The hospital makes that EVEN MORE obvious.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.126.89.53 (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sonic reviews 

message: Is it really needed? It seems silly to me, like some Vestibule users were looking for fame and put it on Wikipedia. It just irks me, I don't see why it's activity over most other boards should grant it a special section.
:I agree.  I deleted it, and have put this page on watch so if it shows up again it will be deleted again, and again, and again... Vikramsidhu 00:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  That small section about "The Vestibule". 

message: Added the criticism section; if you don't believe me then post on the IGN BOARDS. They always criticize IGN.
Zephead999 08:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added the criticism section; if you don't believe me then post on the IGN BOARDS. They always criticize IGN. 

message: Hello everyone. I noticed that "ign", written in the Search slot, does not redirect here, but to Ign. Given the fact that "Ign" is extremely short, not categorized and uses an ordinary language, i think that it's a spam article. Is there any solution for this? --Twicemost 18:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Danger!

message: Hi there, I've wrote a German Wikipedia Entry for IGN de:IGN Entertainment, but I can't add it to this site, so please do it for me. Thanks! --217.83.190.247 (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added, but I am not sure why you needed help on this.  The article is not protected.  --Nlu (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I cant edit without Registration and i will not register for one change, because i'm german. --77.186.28.29 (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I just notices that I can edit it now, but thanks for adding it! --77.186.28.29 (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add German Wikipedia Entry 

message: I think the game collection is a major feature of IGN. It's a huge database that can be used to reference game titles, release dates, publishers, developers, etc. It also allows users to maintain a record of their own individual collections. I don't know if I'm right, but I think that IGN was the first site to offer this type of thing for video games.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olanmills (talk • contribs) 10:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone should talk Game Collections 

message: Information regarding the history of IGN is available here. MahangaTalk 01:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins: The History of IGN

message: Should someone remove or seperate the current channels (the ones that are currently at the top of the page) and the old ones? eg., N64, cube, xbox?
99.144.228.81 (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IGN Channel updates? 

message: Hi, I have added a new section, which explains about the scoring system used by IGN to rate games; I also added several games that gained perfect scores, with nice sources cited.--Twicemost (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New section added

message: The podcast section is writen stupid.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.173.131 (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Podcast Section 

message: I think someone delibratly gave false-information on this page as a joke.  The Senior Vice-President and Publisher's name on the staff list reads "IP Freely" (I pee freely).  Unless this really is the Senior Vice-President and Publisher's name someone should find the real name and fix it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Landmark356 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP Freely!? 

message: As I recall, Tornado Mania got a 10/10. It received that score two years ago. Even the IGN page says so. So it is 2 years.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.42.125 (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wait, 9 years? Try 2 

message: I'm no Wikipedia master or anything, but I can look at this article and say with confidence that much more information is present than is necessary. The opening paragraph is great, but from there it gets messy. I've already trimmed down the channels list quite a bit. The big staff list seems like it can be reduced significantly if not completely removed. I'll need to keep looking at this. Juhsayngul (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usefulness of information 

message: Most of the Scoring section in the article right now is taken up by an arbitrary list of games that have received a perfect 10.  I know someone suggested that that be written (see above), but I don't know if it's really important to have that list.  It seems to be thrown in pretty randomly, and talked about in more depth than is necessary (a single sentence listing five or six games might be one thing...but in this case, it's almost the entire section, with lots of extra statistics such as which games got a 10 on IGN-UK and what the most recent game to get a 10 was).  This doesn't really tell us a whole lot about IGN's scoring practices in general, as the vast majority of games do not get 10s and people are probably interested in knowing how those games get scored, too.  I think the discussion of 10s in this section should be seriously truncated. Or, at the very least, we could implement this as a subsection of the Scoring section, so it doesn't look like it's the main point of the section.  Any thoughts/suggestions?  --Politizer (talk) 02:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Scoring

message: Is this really notable?  —Politizer( talk • contribs ) 16:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redesigned homepage 

message: The "other sections" is not really miscellaneous, and doesn't really need to be tagged .  I think it could be improved a lot if it were converted into a list or table format, rather than the current format which is pretty random and makes it hard to read or look at.  Specifically, if the section were titled something more descriptive (like "Other sections of IGN" or "Other sites [or something like that] owned by IGN," we could turn the information in this section into a table, giving a) the name of the section; b) the dates when the section was established and, if applicable, discontinued; c) a description of what the section is/was about.  If that were done, everything but the April Fool's stuff could be included in that section without the  tag, and April Fool's could be moved into its own section or cut.
On a slightly unrelated note, in this section there is mention of how faqs.ign.com was established when IGN split from Gamefaqs; the History part of the article, as far as I could tell, says nothing at all about Gamefaqs, either the split or the period when IGN and Gamefaqs were associated with one another.  This seems to me like important information, and someone who knows more of the history should add stuff about it.  (Or I can do it once I get around to reading the History that is linked to in the footnotes.)  —Politizer( talk • contribs ) 20:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for cleanup