Talk:Desktop Tower Defense

message: This whole article sounds like an attempt to sell the game to the reader. I couldn't make it to the bottom of the (short) page. It made me gag. Slapntickle 16:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yuck 

message: Recreated the article as an unbiased, neutral and sourced article unrelated to the old one. I hope this new one addresses the concerns raised at the previous AfD. Shrumster 06:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be integrated later into text as references/reviews. ,  and . Shrumster 08:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Regarding? Shrumster 16:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recreated Article 

message: What makes dark creeps special as far as i can tell they just pay well? Maybe there should be a section on creep types.
:Good point. I'll try to elaborate on the creep types but I'm avoiding this turning into a game guide so the section should be detailed enough to say how the creeps are different but not enough that actual statistics and values are stated. AFAIK, dark creeps are extremely slow but any shot doing less than a particular amount of damage bounces off harmlessly off them. Shrumster 08:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the immune only reflects blizzard/frost, not the stun of Bashes as of 1.5  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.120.192 (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Dark creeps don't sustain damage except from highly-upgraded towers. The dark creeps are barely knicked by a level-3 squirt tower; you can overcome a line of them with a level-4 squirt tower; and you can quickly blow them away with a typhoon tower. As for the gameguide stuff, I think it's sometimes a blurry line; we have a lot of gameguide-ish stuff on popular games such as Monopoly and basically it's just a matter of what the community will tolerate. There's some bias against thorough coverage of this type of game, relative to, for instance, a well-known board game. That's just the nature of how Wikipedia is governed. Simultaneous movement (talk) 04:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  dark creeps 

message: We have to draw a threshold for inclusion of mentions at some point. The webcomic "Sunday at Ten" has been determined to be non-notable at AFD. As an AFD comment stated, it's a random web comic – the equivalent of a self-published source, and as such such it's not reliable or sufficiently notable source to demonstrate this game's popularity or recognition popular culture. --Muchness 21:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. Have it your way. Shrumster 21:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reception and impact

message: A number of sources being used are blogs. Unless the individual who wrote the blog happens to be a verifiable expert in the field of online flash games, and published previously by a third party as such, this is a problem. While there are several useable citations there, the ones which are not are going to have to be trimmed as well as the text they support.--Crossmr 12:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which ones specifically? Shrumster 13:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: , ,  (this one isn't even necessary to support the text its attached to), , , , ,  (tech crunch might have some notability, but who is this person and is there any editorial oversight? It appears not as he's taken his information from another self-published blog), , . The question comes down to: Do any of these have editorial oversight? If not, who are these people? Why do we care about their opinion and what they've written? Anyone can go out, fire up a blog and add whatever they want to it. Which is the problem.--Crossmr 22:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, 5, 6 & 7 are only used as sources for the exact dates of the upgrades so there's little volatile information that can be misconstrued from them. Note that the author of 6 is notable enough to survive an AFD and is an accepted professional blogger. As for the others, they're all technology-oriented reviews and are used as sources for their review-value (and not for factual information which is the primary concern of WP:V/RS). To cite a specific example, Yuga is one of the #1 bloggers in his country (and probably should have a WP article himself). Shrumster 23:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He might be a notable blogger, that doesn't make him an expert in the field of online games who's been published by a third party. See WP:V#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29. Whether they're used for fact or opinion that doesn't give them a pass. I can go whip up a blog review on any subject, it doesn't mean it should be cited in a wikipedia article. Unless the blog can be demonstrated to possess editorial oversight (some newspapers for example have a blog section but those blogs receive the same editorial oversight as a regular column) or the writer can be shown to be meet the criteria above, it can't be used as a source, for fact or opinion (especially opinion).--Crossmr 23:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes an "expert" in the field of online games then? Shrumster 05:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They not only have to be an expert, they have to be published as such by a reliable third party. There would have to be some indication that a reliable source views this person as an expert in the field and he's been published as such. If a newspaper were to constantly cite this person and his opinion it would give you an idea that his opinion is notable and valuable. If he's been cited in books, papers, articles or otherwise (and preferably more than once or twice) then it would establish them as an expert. Were there then evidence that they've been published as such (notable publishing firm, newspaper runs a regular column from them, notable TV show has them in regularly, etc) then you can use their self-published material. If there is nothing tangible that someone can really check and verify against to indicate that blogger X really is an expert and his opinion should have weight, it doesn't make him any different from Joe Blogger and anyone can go out and create all kinds of sources to support pretty much anything they want in an article.--Crossmr 19:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "anyone can go out and create all kinds of sources to support pretty much anything they want in an article" but that's not what happened here now, isn't it? You have to be flexible when dealing with articles on topics that obviously aren't conventional and mainstream. For example, can you actually give me an expert on "online flash games"? I doubt that by your standards, any actually exist because that's simply too specific. The subject of the article is not just an "online flash game". It is a game. It is an online resource. It is a flash game. It is an online game. It is a web application. As such, you should be looking for "experts" on those particular fields and not simply "online flash games". That would be like discounting the work of a herpetologist who says something about the pygmy Madagascar cave frog on the grounds that "he is an expert on frogs, but not on the pygmy Madagascar cave frog." Anyway, if you're still not convinced, I say WP:IAR since the sources are not controversial, they're independent of the subject, "no free alternative exists" (using the argument for fair use as a humorous analog), and the information gleaned from them simply enhance the article (and do not jeopardize its quality in any way). BTW, some of the sources do pass your strict specifications, such as the techcrunch ones. Shrumster 20:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No you really don't. If you're beginning to put forth the theory that you can't find proper reliable sources for this because its not conventional and mainstream you're calling its notability in to question. We don't give a subject a pass because its really cool and in the internet so regular sources aren't available. Those aren't my standards they're the communities standards, and no its unlikely there isn't a recognized expert on flash games, which is why none of these blogs are usable as sources. Desktop Tower Defense is a popular Flash-based browser game of the tower defense genre Sounds to me thats what its about. As such any self-published source would have to be an expert in this or a very related field (flash in general, online games in general, very loosely web apps, but thats pushing it), either way you haven't demonstrated that any of the authors of the self-published material are recognized and published experts in the field of Games, online games, online resources, web applications, etc...  if you need to invoke IAR, you're using it wrong. Because I can simply invoke it as well and remove it all. IAR gets you no where and doesn't win you any debates. The sources have been challenged and if you'd like to keep them in the article then you need to demonstrate that they meet the policy in WP:V for self-published online sources. If any of them do, feel free to demonstrate as such and they can be left alone.--Crossmr 21:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a comment. It's true that most blogs are unreliable, but don't say that because none of these blogs are experts in online flash games that they're unusable as sources. In particular, TechCrunch, Kottke, and GigaOM are well-established blogs that are deemed experts in particular areas of web properties. Some of the others can be removed but not all blogs, but popular blogs that talk about websites and web companies and web services and have been cited in mainstream media to be knowledgeable/competent about those deserve to be cited for Desktop Tower Defense. The frog analogy is apt. There is unlikely that there is a widely cited expert on a particular species of frog so a simple frog-expert is acceptable or even just a general zoologist. --seav 02:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: just because "a" blog has been cited in the main-stream media doesn't make "this" blog reliable. That was my point above. If an author or their blog have been cited in main stream media as an expert on a subject (preferably repeatedly) then yes, they can be used as a citation. But just because blog X has been, or X, Y, and Z have been, doesn't mean blog A is automatically a reliable source. Blogs are self-published and until it establishes that level of credibility its no different than any other blog out there.--Crossmr 03:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I personally don't think that we should enforce strict reliability/credibility criterion on every article. It's true that we shouldn't cite zoology blogs in zoology articles (unless the blog author is an established zoologist widely recognized in the field), but I see no problem citing established blogs (that report on things on the web: TechCrunch, etc.) about web games. The bigger problem are unsourced statements in Wikipedia. But here, in this particular case, they're sourced and the reader can make judgement for him/herself whether that's useful information or not. --seav 02:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV apply to all articles, not just the ones which have a chance of being edited according to those rules. If an article can't be met to conform to those policies its a clear indication it shouldn't be here. The bigger problem are unsourced statements in Wikipedia a poor citation is no better than no citation. I can go out and whip up a blog to say whatever I want to support. That doesn't make the statement I want to add any better or more reliable. Most of these blogs are not usable as citation, so no, they're not sourced.--Crossmr 06:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You see, here's the deal. Where I come from, whenever a niche-topic such as a paper about a particularly obscure species of frog gets published in a non-herp (or even a non-zoological-specialist) journal, that makes that species a tad more notable than others. Why? Because a generalist journal (the big ISI ones, let's say Science or Nature) saw it fit to publish something on that particular topic considering that its scope is much wider than just let's say the reproductive biology of a particular species of frog. Now some of the sources you're nitpicking are generally-respected tech-blogs. They saw it fit to publish an article (in many of the cases, NOT a review, but an actual article) about a particular online flash game. If you search those sites, you won't find that many articles on games - so it seems like this particular one "stands out", huh? Hmm...sounds like notability to me. Thing is, many of these don't even review the game as a game -their articles on it are slanted towards the value of the game as an online culture phenomenon (and not just as a simple flash game). Ah, online culture...which happens to be the specialty of many of these sites. I doubt you can willingly say that these sites are not specialists in online culture.  And before you even point it out, yes the game does fall under the category (and not simply adjacent). To argue otherwise...will clearly show that you have a darker, more sinister agenda for the article at hand. And now a couple of select responses: "If you're beginning to put forth the theory that you can't find proper reliable sources for this because its not conventional and mainstream you're calling its notability in to question." Ha! I had a feeling this would come up. Your kind never ceases to amaze me. Next thing you know, you'll be calling the New York Times source "unreliable" because it's not an "expert on online flash games." "IAR gets you no where and doesn't win you any debates." You see, that's the problem. While you seem to be here on WP to "win debates", I'm here to make it better by adding content. So feel free to challenge sources all you want, I think I'm going to focus my WP energies on making content instead of nitpicking and deleting it. Cheers! ;) Shrumster 06:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While the game might have been notable to that blog, that doesn't establish the notability and credibility of the blog itself. You're very clearly confusing the two. Improving an article doesn't just mean adding material to endlessly. If we did that, articles would balloon to unmanageable sizes. Improving articles also involves removing content which shouldn't be there. Things like improperly sourced statements. Your kind never ceases to amaze me read WP:NPA before your next response. Next thing you know, you'll be calling the New York Times source "unreliable" because it's not an "expert on online flash games The New York Times is not a self-published source, there is no requirement for it to be an expert in the field. I've asked you to provide evidence that these sources meet the requirements laid out in the policies and you've failed to do. Plenty of reasonable time has been afforded for that. The policy also requires that since you want to keep the material you're required to provide that evidence. --Crossmr 06:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blogs as sources 

message: Tower Defense redirects here.  Shouldn't it redirect to an article on the genre itself rather than just one of the particular games?  It's as though First Person Shooter redirected to the Halo 3 page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.112.227 (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I Agree. It's not the best configuration to ensure ease of use, and could be construed as non-neutrality on the part of wikipedia. This should be fixed. --24.180.171.1 (talk) 03:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree here too. Needs to be done soon... we need some references for the Tower Defense genre as a whole... 80.5.214.255 (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was previously deleted because proper sources couldn't be found. Its currently only redirected because someone felt the need to recreate it without proper sourcing.--Crossmr (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, the redirect needs to be fixed. It is completely inappropriate.  Aetherealize (talk) 07:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tower Defense 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Desktop Tower Defense. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20090710075045/http%3A//www.handdrawngames.com/DesktopTD/game.asp to http://www.handdrawngames.com/DesktopTD/Game.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: * 
@Thue, I thought to utilize the already existant Archive and to preserve for historical reference both the original freer website access of Hand Drawn Games, versus the current Kongregate and Facebook, the former being advertising swamped, and the latter requiring logging on with one's credentials or creating a new account, as well as providing access to the various flash versions available at that time, 1.0, 1.2, 1.5 and Pro.  For any game aficionados.  WurmWoodeT 18:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOT so DeadLink