Talk:Neopets/Archive 3

message: If you go to this link on the oficial Neopets web-site, it says something about a movie comming out winter, 2006.  Should this be mentioned in the article?
Joiz 15:34, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)
:That may just be a joke. I would wait for official confirmation. Aranel 00:31, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't say it's a movie that's going to be in theaters, it might just be something on the website to highlight a plot. --Rory096 08:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That does seem real enough. I'd be happy to say that it already has been confirmed. SatanxSucks 17:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The original messages were talking about a movie like one described on the game site, not really the fact that there will eventually be a movie about Neopets. —AySz88\^-^ 23:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Neopets movie?!

message: Jsholm 09:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Please use #Suitability of Article below, to keep everything in the same place.) --AySz88^-^ 03:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Is one appropriate or necessary? An anon added one to the article and I've reverted that change for now. For those that don't know, "Jelly World" is supposed to be a hidden world on the Neopets site. →Reene✏ 15:00, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
[199.71.141.254]: Hello. This is the IP address that added that link. Actually, this IP address belongs to a public high school in Canada. Apparently, one of my fellow students made that change (it's not too difficult to guess who, there's only one Neopets player here =)). I really apologize on behalf of her actions; she probably is new to Wikipedia. Please, do not block this IP address, as many of the students here use Wikipedia for true research, education, and occasionally contribution. I'll have a talk with her. See you, and thanks!
If you are going to remove the link, why not remove the whole mention at all? Jelly World has been repeatedly stated by The Neopets Team as not existing and that fact is stated in a variety of places including CellBlock, etc. If you are going to mention Jelly World, you might as well add the link. SandBoxer
There's nothing wrong about hiding the URL for Jelly World.  I know it, and I would love to put it up, but I'm not sure if i can ^.^  Anways, in Jelly World, you can get free jelly, as well as you can get free omelettes a day too for your pet-cutienemo04
* Jelly World is an easter egg on Neopets. Its location is not difficult to figure out (and many sites online provide links to it). I suggest making a small section about a "Jelly World Controversy" stating that "although many users claim Neopets has a Jelly World, Neopets claims no such world exists. Many fansites link to pages on Neopets that they purport to be Jelly World." Factual? Yes. Concise? Yes. Giving away the secret? No. :) 24.91.161.139 03:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inline link to "Jelly World"

message: A section quotes that to access the Jelly World board a 'javascript code' is needed. Where on earth did you get that information from? I've been able to access Jelly World board by finding it by changing the forum URL's board= (or similar), going through all combinations to eventually find it. I can't remember the ID off the top of my head, and I don't intend to go to neopets.com anytime soon, can someone else please look up on this?
 >> You can go to jelly world by just going to http://www.neopets.com/jelly/
To get to the Jelly World Board, go to http://www.neopets.com/neoboards/boardlist.phtml?board=18
-- PinkDeoxys 23:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jelly World 

message: Note from anonymous person: I'm pretty sure that this "Premium" thing no longer exists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.179.172.217 (talk • contribs) 02:50, January 4, 2006 (UTC). (moved comment from article to talk page)
I think it's still around, as I'm using it. --AySz88^-^ 03:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Premium over?

message: Referring to the discussion about Thomas Deaton and Adam Garner allegedly being co-founders of the site with Adam Powell and Donna Williams, it appears that consensus was reached in favor of these allegations. The discussion refers to a flash animation and a legal document, apparently viewed by some of those who participated in the discussion, that are not available at present. It seems that as per the above discussion, some sort of mention of Deaton and Garner is in order for the article. Theshibboleth 13:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion is very very old, and most of the original participants don't seem to be around anymore, so I'm not sure it's wise to change the article now. --AySz88^-^ 04:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Add Garner, but not Deaton. -- PinkDeoxys 13:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Founding

message: I believe that AntiNeopian should be included in Wikipedia because 7 ProNeopian links have been accepted. Currently, AntiNeopian is the largest anti-neopets site and, in my opinion, a link should be accepted to balance the ProNeopian POV in this article.
- Tezeti
: If it is decided that no fansites be listed, this discussion has no meaning, but listing no fansites means that the External Links section will be very unstable, due to people constantly adding links to the largest, most-notable fansites.
: It should be noted that this was already discussed.  The previous discussion is stored in the archive (see /Archive 1).  An RfC in the "Style" category was listed, but no comments were received.
: I still think this Anti-Neopets thing is not notable, especially this supposedly "largest" site.  On the day I removed the link, the site was only a forum, and it had recieved only 43 posts in the past 23 hours. "Balance" is not needed for NPOV, as that implies equal treatment, which is a poor idea for Wikipedia.  (In Global Warming, you wouldn't give equal treatment between proponents and opponents, for example.  One expert said that, even in its current state, the Global Warming article was giving too much to those who deny its existance.  Wikipedia already needs to work on distinguishing between NPOV and giving things more than their due.)
: I also don't think the other fansites are "pro" Neopets, as that implies that there is some sort of tension going on between two sides, which there doesn't seem to be.  Things from Pink Poogle Toy were sources for many things in User Criticisms, for example.  It seems like there are just as many complaints about TNT at PPT as at AntiNeopian, except at PPT that might be balanced out a bit by some of the diehard regulars there.  In any case, if there seems to be more complaining at a pro-Neopets site than the largest anti-Neopets site, I really don't think the site or movement is notable. --AySz88^-^ 03:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do it the way PayPal treats paypalsucks.com; include an external link to it in the section on controversy but not at the bottom. Nifboy 01:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AntiNeopian

message: The following comment was added to the main article ("Controversy" section) by User:Neoadam and moved here by me.  Powers 19:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only 2 accounts have ever been deleted! It was in the neopian times answered by Donna herself...The NT is a news paper devoted to the users.--Neoadam 19:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: My account was one of the ones deleted. :'(  -- PinkDeoxys 13:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, long unused accounds are deleted. They do this every so many years. I think there has only been one to date. -- Jelly Soup 01:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: Firstly, I have added a paragraph to the Controversy section of the article, summarizing the cookie grabbing scare which recently occured on NeoPets. Please read my paragraph and give me feedback on my writing skills. Also feel free to correct any mistakes I make.
Secondly, there are some broken links on Wikipedia. When I click on them, nothing at all happens. No new page loads and no error message appears. These links appear as numbers in square brackets. I think these links point to anchors which no longer exist. I don't know where the anchors used to be, so I can't directly edit to help.
Thirdly, I think that if we cannot confirm the claims that NeoPets had four co-founders instead of two, we should add it to the already-long Controversy section.
Fourthly, because scams are common on NeoPets, the most common ones should be included in the article for the sake of completeness. The reason is included in the next paragraph.
Lastly, I do not agree with someone's decision to take down information about the NeoBoards and player types, etc. because it would not be of interest to those who are not familiar with the site. There are many amatuer Neopians who may visit this article to find out more about NeoPets (like myself, and I consider myself an advanced Neopian and have been playing for over 4 years). Information about the abbrevations commonly used in NeoPets, player types, Neoboards, etc.
I hope you consider the points I have put forward. Feel free to contact me if you need to inform me of something, and also to give feedback on the paragraph I wrote about the cookie grabbing scare.
--J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My 2 cents and edit

message: The page Neopets Faeries should be merged into this page....
* It is related to Neopets.
* It needs rewording (It is plagiarized).
* It has been messed up from the start.
* I personally think it should be.
--B7342 23:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep it as it is. -- PinkDeoxys 16:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mergeing of the page [[Neopets Faeries]] 

message: I've noticed that although references have been changed to the new style, they don't work at all because there's no reference list at the bottom! Someone HAS to fix this; what's the point of having reference links without a reference list? Darkhooda 18:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone thinks I'm a bit of a geek anyway, so I really don't care what YOU think. -- PinkDeoxys 13:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: References are fixed. Joelito 00:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Completely necessary to have the 160 mil. thing in both the first and third paragraphs? Also, in the article, there's two sections on immersive advertising that say basically the same thing.
Hanzolot 00:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 160 million USD Factoid and Immersive Advertising

message: I was just looking at http://www.pinkpt.com/neodex/index.php/Neopets and large parts of their article seem identical to the one here. I'm not sure which article on which site came first but in some cases the wording is exactly or nearly the same. (I first noticed that several sentences in the Basics section were word for word the same when I edited it today.) Cloveapple 03:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Are parts of the Neopets article copied? (plagiarized)

message: Just as a note to everyone, I archived a bunch of really old discussions. That's why the talk page is suddenly much shorter. ;) Hbackman 01:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived

message: The amount of external links now is large. Way too large. At the time of writing there are 16. I suggest these should be shrunk down to a more manageable amount. The amount seems to get higher and higher as more adverts are being placed on it. What I need is a consensus on which articles get kept and which don't. 
My idea is to keep only one hate site,PPT,the two official websites and the 2 other highest-traffic sites and to delete all others. Give me your thoughts here on any ideas on this or any improvements to the idea. J.J.Sagnella 15:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So should I go ahead and do it? J.J.Sagnella 15:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. -- PinkDeoxys 16:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a good goal, but I don't think it'll be stable - people will probably end up trying to re-add more links again.  What I tried to do was add a couple of directories of Neopets sites - Google Directory, the Petpage guide, etc. - but that didn't seem to work. --AySz88^-^ 21:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And you think It wouldn't be easy to revert back? The current situation is more unstable than my plan will ever be. J.J.Sagnella 21:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can try it, but having to revert a lot against anonymous users probably constitutes edit warring, and stability is a criteria for both WP:GA and WP:FA. --AySz88^-^ 21:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about we just try it for 1-3 months and see if it works? J.J.Sagnella 21:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I said, you can try it, and see if it becomes obvious that it's working or not working. --AySz88^-^ 21:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, I'll do it. I'll see how it goes. J.J.Sagnella 22:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Bear in mind this is Wikipedia not Neopets. On here, we usually have links to major mansites to give users more to read about when they finish the article and are intrested in more. J.J.Sagnella 17:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It is possible to change the list of fansites. It is however quite hard to change, to stop people just coming straight to Wikipedia and using it as billboard space. J.J.Sagnella 21:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links-My Solution 

message: On 31 March 2006/1+2 April 2006, Neopets added NeoCharge which charged the user his/her own Neopoints to use many parts of the site. Shouldn't any information be added on this? -Oreos, 2:02, 1 April 2 (UTC)
:This is totally an April Fools' joke. I for one will leave the information about it in the article (someone already put it in) for a day, just in case it's not a joke, but I really suspect that it is. Hbackman 02:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neopets says they're trying to balance inflation, which, actually, is a good reason to keep it up, but it has to be a joke nevertheless. Oreos 14:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep, if they reduced the charges by a factor of 40ish, it would be good to kill inflation. --AySz88^-^ 21:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think there is no "neocharge avatar". If there is one, then it would be on an avatar list in a Neopets help site. Somebody would have tell a site about the avatar because April Fools Day is not a holiday so more people were playing Neopets. --Fruit Boy 01:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NeoCharge!

message: I deleted the recently added comments concerning the now-defunct General Chat because they needed citations (concerning the girl being abducted, because I remember reading news reports about this),and  added nothing to the section. The last two additions looked more like replies to a posted message rather than an actual article. If someone wants to re-add information about the Neoboards, research would be appreciated. Lmblackjack21 22:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neoboards

message: Would everyone be OK with just getting rid of this section altogether? Everything that gets added needs citation, which seems impossible to get, apart from the paragraph about it being female/child-orientated which not only needs citation of a place where people have complained but seems more like marketing at a certain demographic rather than favouritism. And it keeps getting hijacked with comments complaining about random things and users on the site that can't be proven, it seems more trouble than it's worth.
: I agree that this should be removed. T. J. Day 22:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be removed. -- PinkDeoxys 11:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto.  Any part that will repeatedly get ruined should go away. B katt 500 02:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Favouritism

message: I have marked the links section as having a biased point of view because it fails to represent anti-neopets beliefs.
The critisism section has been removed before. I was not involved in the process, but I cannot think of a good reason as to why it should be in the article. Ixistant 16:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV