Talk:Battrick
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| Low | This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0. | |
|
VG To-do:
|
||
 |
Click here for information about how the WikiProject assesses notability Battrick is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project page for more details. |
||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||||||
|
|||||||
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-08-04. The result of the discussion was No consensus. |
Contents |
[edit] Notability
This article is under risk of deletion unless someone can find a review or something on it from a reliable source ASAP! --JRA WestyQld2 23:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Notability has been cleared up before, please make sure to check external links, read WP:SOFTWARE/WP:WEB and post a message on my talk page before you tag this article for deletion. Thank you! --JRA WestyQld2 07:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please provide evidence of how it is notable. --Peephole 12:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is under external links, where notability always is! As I said it passes criteria #3 of WP:WEB:
The software has been verifiably the subject of non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the software developer, such as a major media news piece, a book, a peer-reviewed scientific publication, or an article in a reputed technical magazine. A single such publication that is specifically about the software is sufficient; for publications that mention the software while not being specifically about them, and for publications of lower profile (such as a local newspaper or an e-zine), multiple such works are needed.
As well as #1 of WP:SOFTWARE
The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster
Since you will not remove the tag I will remove it until you can find a valid reason to why the article should be deleted, I have noticed in the last week you have been tagging quite a few browser based game articles, perhaps you are not reading throughout the articles before you post the tag or you haven't read the guidlines (Yes, not strict rules) of notability for Software and Web properly. --JRA WestyQld2 01:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The external links show it is not trivial and rather a solid reputable game.User:ads_afc 7th August 2006
I think that standard for notability is clearly met for this game. As the external links establish, it has been mentioned prominently by other non-trivial artciles about the game. --Jonaustin 02:11, 4 August 2004 (UTC)
- Please voice your opinion here --JRA WestyQld2 01:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] User Template
If anyone has any better userboxes please post them, but I have created Template:User Battrick --JRA WestyQld2 08:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Is this amount right?
Each team starts with a token (virtual!) budget of 50,000 pounds
Thought starting amount was 200,000 or is this a ref to the FC subsidy?
Also - the text seems confusing as to number of weeks (first instance near top, bottom instance seems correct)
--Auntaggy 15:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
It is actually 200,000 pounds, I'll edit it accordingly. Thanks --JRA WestyQld2 22:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Notability
To the gentleman who believes a No Consensus decision from a months-old AfD proves notability: It doesn't. Not once in the AfD were reliable sources provided so that editors could verify Battricks notability. And even more amazingly, despite being put up for deletion, the article still hasn't had any work done on it that would bring it up to inclusion criteris. In spite of this, the tags are NOT deletion tags and are perfectly valid. The article does not assert it's notability, and only provides primary sources. Until these issues are addressed within the article itself then the tags have every right to be there and further removal of them without an effort to address the concerns they highlight will be viewed in bad faith. DarkSaber2k 08:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Notabilty proved :) --JRA WestyQld2 01:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- This is a game with over 9,500 users (as of this posting -- yes, you'll need to log into the game to know this -- but it's published as fact at SMG News), and users come from every continent, possibly barring Antarctica. The content on the website is reproduced and discussed in various locations on the web:
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Logo l.jpg
Image:Logo l.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 08:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Layout
The whole article needs to be tidied up, and fixed so it doesn't read like an ad. Could be a big job, but it's a good opportunity to expand the article as well. I was thinking we could just steal the layout of Hattrick wholesale. Any thoughts? Karlww (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Nobody care? I'm going to do it here first. I'll get started at some stage... Karlww (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Edits Dec. 1, 2007: Have tried to clean up the article, correct some inaccuracies, add references to some facts, and make it read a bit less like an advertisement (though there wasn't much to be done in that respect). --Braveowlracing 12:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
-I see no one is in a hurry to remove the ad banner. I'll give it a little longer before I remove it myself. --Braveowlracing 12:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
