Talk:Kingdom of Loathing

message: I was looking at the citations for the Kingdom of Loathing page and found that a good number of them are:
*Forum messages
*Chat messages
*Blog messages
*Game site reviews
*fan site pages ie. "KOL Wiki"
I mention this because one of the pages I was trying to unprotect Marapets a little while back was denied unprotection because a lot of the citations I provided had some of THAT content as well.  I could only find one Magazine citation where it was mentioned that the economy of the United States was indeed affected somewhat by people spending money on sites like Marapets.  This is the page which clearly mentions Marapets: http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/25/amazon-google-facebook-ent-tech-cx_kw_0725whartonwebpreneur.html
I also included the Quantcast ranking for Marapets (9,130): http://www.quantcast.com/marapets.com
The Alexa ranking for Marapets (13,957): http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/marapets.com
I want to know WHY I was denied to re-create the Marapets page yet, a similar game site like KOL is still here with rankings MUCH lower than Marapets:
Kingdom of Loathing Alexa Ranking (22,423): http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/kingdomofloathing.com
Kingdom of Loathing Quantcast Ranking (24,763): http://www.quantcast.com/kingdomofloathing.com
I want to know if Wikipedia chooses to take preference for certain games, and why would that be?  I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be BOLD and NEUTRAL.  It is a good thing I decided to look these things up.  I also DO NOT agree with the Marapets article deleted in the first place.  I do not consider the choice a good OR FAIR one.
--Molokaicreeper (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A few reasons.
*Forum messages
-The forum messages linked are official statements from the game's creators.
*Chat messages
-ibid
*Blog messages
-Such blogs link to interviews with gamestaff, etc.  
*Game site reviews
-Plenty of pages link to game reviews... it's standard Wiki practice.
*fan site pages ie. "KOL Wiki"
-The KoL Wiki (and KoL Coldfront) are not unofficial.  They are linked directly on the Kingdom of Loathing homepage and have received the official blessing from the gamestaff.
The references are sound and within the Wiki's standards.  I would bring the Marapets article to a Wikiadmin's attention if you feel the page should be restored.--LordHuffnPuff (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

text: *I'll grant you that some of the sources cited on this page are weak, but there are also good third-party sources here, like Wired, The Escapist, and Jay Is Games and EuroGamer. If you can cite articles about "Marapets" that appear on similar sites, then I'm sure your page wouldn't get deleted. --Cornprone (talk) 06:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, it wasn't my page.  I just so happen to be working in a Marapets Game guide recently and was upset not to find the entry which used to be here a couple of years ago.  Looking for citations can be really hard.  I myself didn't want to get into that task as a matter of fact.  But the site has reached 2 million users, it is an independent game site that has gathered enough users to be notable.  So it hasn't generated enough status to be in more newspaper sources or magazines; perhaps its because 75% of people who play in it are female?  Does that make it less important?  I sure hope not. I don't want to be a pain or sound paranoid but I am beginning to believe that. --Maradan Chronicles Wiki (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

text: *If the article was deleted, it was because it was a poorly written article that went through review and was deemed not worthy of continuing to be an article, not because of some evil sexist Wikipedia anti-female propaganda.  If you want there to be an article on this game, write it, make sure that you cite good sources, and chances are that you won't have a problem.--LordHuffnPuff (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable citations... 

message: For anyone still interestede in updating this article theres a relatively recent interview at http://www.diygamer.com/2010/05/years-kingdom-loathing-interview/ that looks like it could be useful. Danie Tei (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: DIY Gamer Interview

message: Hasn't been much movement on this page in a while I'm hoping to change that.
The history section in particular is a problem for me. There is NO good reason for the grey plague to be in the article, there have been numerous similar in game events since and quite frankly I didn't think it was that notable when it was one of the few events the game had.
Black Sunday and White Wednesday may actually warrant mentions given that had a serious effect on the games design as well as a non ingame reson for their implementation but I don't think it's enough to warrant their own headings and in-depth explanation.
Unless I hear a good reason not to or a large number of people disagreeing I'm looking to cut most of it in the next few days.Danie Tei (talk) 12:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I recall several years ago arguing that the history section was helpful because it provided examples of the game's narrative style and the motivations of its designers. It is also -- simply put -- interesting, at least to me. What I would ask you is, why do you want to delete it? Would it be considered "fancruft"? Perhaps so, although Wikipedia does not have a policy that actually demands the removal of all fancruft. Instead, we should ask whether this information falls under the category of Wikipedia:NOT. Is this an indiscriminate collection of information? Is its length impeding the readability of the article? Not really, in my opinion, but I can see both sides of that argument. Since you're pressing the point, I would support the section being made more succinct with some minor details stripped out. I also think subheadings and the Grey Plague section can be removed, but I would still like to see the basic information on the other events remain on the page.  --Cornprone (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue I have with the history section is mostly that these events lack notability. The grey plague had no real discernable long term effect on the game, and White Wednesday only a minimal effect. While I agree that these events are a good example of the games play style and narrative but that seems more of an argument to move it to the gameplay or plot and setting sections. The reason that I want to cut this down is that it was a problem when the article was last submitted for a GA review. The history should more be about how the game has evolved over time rather than a few mentions of named in game events. Danie Tei (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I just read the second GA assessment. It sounded like the real problem was that the history section lacks enough real sourced information on the creation and development of the game. It seems that there are very few reliable third party sources you can cite for that, except perhaps that nice Escapist article. That, coupled with all the other little persnickety details the GA guy criticized, makes it look like GA is an annoying process I wouldn't want to delve into. But I do honestly commend you for wanting to. --Cornprone (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: The article manages to describe the Ascension feature without explaining what it is. I'd add this in myself, but I don't play the game.-Zyrath (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ascensions  

message: Due to a lack of player donations, the creators of the game have implemented advertising (rather poorly too). All the mentions to the donation only model need to be changed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.167.80.65 (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Advertising has since been removed. Score one for lazy editing. --JohnDoe244 (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Business Model 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Kingdom of Loathing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110920043624/http://www.buzzbinmagazine.com:80/home/2011/08/12/mc-frontalot-attendance-is-mandatory/ to http://www.buzzbinmagazine.com/home/2011/08/12/mc-frontalot-attendance-is-mandatory/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified