Talk:GameFAQs/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

GameSpot (Sister Site to GameFAQs?)

"GameSpot (Sister Site to GameFAQs)"

Really? I didn't know that - I always thought they just paid GameFAQs to put text links. - Bulbaboy 23:19, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

C|Net owns both of them.

GameSpot links to the FAQs and GameFAQs links to the reviews/game data. That's mostly it.--Asfalterisk 01:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

And the two sites share the same boards, and users of both forums resent the merger. --71.225.64.232 17:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

GameFAQs and GameSpot are both owned by CNET, making them sister sites. Additionally, CNET merged the board communities together. While at conception they were not related, their current affiliation is more or less that of sister sites. --Scottie theNerd 18:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, GameFAQs is seen as part of the 'GameSpot Family'

anti-semitism

Why hasn't the rampant tolerance of anti-semitic posts by the GameFAQs staff come up for discussion? Just look at some of their boards. Someone will make a post insulting Jews and the mods will ignore it. But insult Hitler, no, they won't stand for that. Even Jeff Greasey has refused to deny allegations of this in public. Oh well, hide it or not, I've let the ADL know of this, we'll see how long Veasey can hide it.

  • Anti-semitism and other offensive remarks are not tolerated. Remember that the boards are patrolled by users, not Moderators. Moderators deal with issues brought to them; they cannot see everything at once. Also remember that this is a Wikipedia discussion page, and any complaints or gripes with the site do not belong here. --Scottie theNerd 18:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

LUE History section

I think that the LUE History section needs to be expanded to include previous events/its creation/whatever, as it is somewhat strange to have whole section about one event. I would have added this info myself, but since I didn't actually go to LUE before it was closed, I don't know anything about it. - Gallavant from GameFAQs forums, 9th Feb, 2004

If you checked the history of this page, you would see that this article was nothing but an entry for the History of LUE. Otacon2009

Well, I'm glad someone did that. :) - Gallavant

Future date in history section

the history bit mentions "August 30th, 2009" - I assume it's a typo for 2005, and have edited it to reflect that... but not knowing anything about events on the GameFAQs message boards, I'm not sure if thats the case or if it was someone's attempt to predict a RIot, as it were.

Vandalism

This page has come under heavy repeated vandalism. It is currently protected.

Sorry about that... I'm from GameFAQs, too, LUE in particular, and it's just scary what these people can do sometimes. I saw the link to this page posted there and thought there would be damage... F. Delpierre
For anyone who has access to LUE (you know if you can) this is the topic that links here. I don't think it was malicious in intent but the edit this page button was just too tempting for some. BesigedB

Yes, obviously it wasn't malicious, but as you say, it's much too tempting for a certain class of morons on LUE. F. Delpierre

Same here, Delpierre... not surprised that vandalism is occuring =\. ugen64 21:25, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

I just fixed a bit of vandalism. Is it just me, or do most vandals have IPs for names instead of usernames? --Evice 03:12, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

LUE is a powerful force. The LUEsers come in great numbers and leave a trail of destruction. Try not to get on their bad side, especially if you run a web site with forums or a guestbook. ~Just another LUEser

Minor problem

As the article is currently protected from editing, I must point out that there's a typo in the first paragraph under "LUE History". It should read "occurrence", not "occurence". Please fix it when you get the chance. Chris Roy 03:01, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Work required

Links to ToS violation and lots of other jargon-busters (some still to be written). At the moment parts of this page would be unintelligible to anyone new to the culture of sites such as this one. Andrewa 20:13, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please remove the neo nazi reference, cjayc is actually a nice guy

Understandable by Newbies?

One thing I've noticed about most Wikipedia articles as they are understandable by those not normally familiar with the subject matter- however, this contains much slang and references that even I, a veteran of net boards, do not understand. Perhaps it could be made a bit more accessible?

Another one

[1]: I am afraid that this will cause another invasion from LUE... :-\ ugen64 22:34, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

Wikification

A large bit of the LUE history needs to be wikified, and a lot of the slang and POV has to be edited.

What's wikification and POV?

Wikification is needed when a large amount of text has been copied from another source (presumably with permission) but needs to be edited (wikified) to follow style rules (links, proper headings, and other conventions). POV = point of view --204.210.27.239

Quotes?

By the by, is the quotes section really needed? It seems to be just a collection of funny things, and not very encyclopedia-like. --204.210.27.239

I think it would be better to move the quotes to a seperate article if they are to be kept at all. They clutter this page up to much. RadioYeti

This article isn't very wiki-ish at all

Hmm ... does this article seem too much like the rest of the wiki? Say World Wide Web?

I think we need to clean up the article, wikify it, and remove the "Credits" section (although it was mostly written by etaonish and 24.*, eventually, it'll get edited beyond comprehension — page history is here for a reason!)

Just my 1.4142 cents. [ alerante 20:25, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC) ]

Meh

Wikification is fine...but credits is actually important I feel. not too many will invest effort to edit it.

Quotes is essential....it defines what GameFAQs is like. --Etaonish 23:36, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

EDIT: ok, ok fine

Does this page really need an extensive history of posters to, and threads on, the GameFAQs boards? Honestly, deleting everything from ==LUE History== onwards would only improve the article from my perspective. -Sean 23:44, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

YES! GameFAQs is described early on and if you're simply looking for general info stop there. IMHO, GameFAQs has a very unique history that ought to be included.

Are you a LUEser? If so, you'd understand.--Etaonish 01:16, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to move the LUE/gamefaqs history to a seperate article like History of GameFAQs boards and the quotes to something like Quotes from GameFAQs boards or perhaps to Wikiquote (q:GameFAQs) -Shoecream

I agree with Shoecream - the LUE history stuff is easily big enough to be put in a seperate article. And it would solve the problem with the enormous size of the article - how the heck did it get to 86 KB without anyone reducing the size? - Bulbaboy 04:23, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Is this a go-ahead to move? Shall we do it right now? Shoecream 04:24, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
Moved Quotes as well.--Etaonish 14:29, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This page is nonencyclopedic and should be deleted.

If you think a page should be deleted, use the proper channels: list it at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. -Sean 00:26, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Karma

What is it? There doesn't seem to be much explanation... --Erik Garrison 06:20, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Done. --Etaonish 13:09, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

Page protected after yet another massive vandalism attack. —No-One Jones 08:30, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Expand the section on RI!

The section on Random Insanity really needs to be expanded. There is nothing on Wayneold's Rants, Sonic Boom's Royal Rankings or the infamous "lolli" fad topic created Salamander from HECK. These were all very important parts of RI's history, and should all be noted here.

There is a separate article on the history of GameFAQs boards. -Sean Curtin 02:46, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
There isn't, but all the same this article is supposed to be only major official events. --Etaonish 14:35, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
There was. Fortunately, it's gone now. -Sean Curtin 16:34, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well, good thing it's gone, it was summer 1999 for crying out loud,... I mean... what was a kid in heat had to do?

Add a P/C section

The P/C (Paranormal and Conspiracy) board has long been one of my most favorite boards on Gamefaqs and I would really like to see its history in print.

I don't have enough information personally to write this: I'm primarily a LUEser now. If you can get in contact with a PC vet, he can write and I'd edit it.

Pssh. It's a haven for trolls. Rarely does it have a real topic about the paranormal or conspiracies. I don't see it as worthy for its own section. --Evice 03:16, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

C'mon, Turkeys

Can't you accept the perfectly NPOV position that you're claiming not to have been hacked? We're not saying you're liars, we're just saying that you said it! ~ FriedMilk 05:43, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)

Christopher McDonald/Kao Megura

In announcing Chris' death, CJayC said that "without him, there probably wouldn't be a GameFAQs" (I'm paraphrasing). Surely there is some way to fit him in this article? --Feitclub 20:08, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Wonderful idea. I'll get to it. --Etaonish 00:47, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

I found the full text of CJayC's update:
5/19/04 12:30PM Truly A Legend.
It's with a very heavy heart that I must tell you that Chris MacDonald, known to most of you as Kao Megura, passed away earlier this week well before his time.
Chris wasn't just a contributor to GameFAQs, he was the contributor. Still one of the most prolific and well-respected contributors to this site, he created probably the most well-known and well-read (and not to mention well-written) FAQs on the whole of the Internet back in 1997 for Final Fantasy VII. That guide alone is still used and credited today as the inspiration for countless authors to follow. From my own correspondence with him, I can also tell you that he was a great guy to get to know.
Not merely GameFAQs, not just the Internet, but the world as a whole has lost someone special, and he will be truly missed. I truly believe that GameFAQs as we know it today would not have existed without him.
Friends, acquaintances, and even those who were just inspired or helped without ever even knowing him personally who wish to send comments and rememberances may send them to kao@gamefaqs.com. This mail will go to his family, not to me, so please use it appropriately. Charitable donations can be made to UNICEF. - Vague Rant 07:27, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
So...what do we do with this? Include it in the article? Make an article on Chris and link to it? --Feitclub 18:09, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Spinoffs

Just did some major editing on the Spinoff Boards section, so there's a chance I might've messed something up. Looks OK to me, but if I've screwed up somewhere like deleted a whole section of it let me know, thanks. - Ant 01:04, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

(P.S. I really think it needs a new page, there's tons of info out there that could end up in it)

Maybe we should add some stuff to cover major events. For instance, the Joako incident. That could be interesting and give us something to write about. - lancelott

Please elaborate for non GameFAQ people as to what that is... Krupo 02:28, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Basically what happened was a bunch of GF users had several websites including spinoff boards, all with the same hosting company on the same servers. One of them found out about this and started messing around, found out the servers were completely unsecured, and stole the source code and entire database for one of the spinoffs. there have been cases before where unsecure code in the boards on some sites led to their database and stuff being taken (whitefyre) but this time the hosting service was at fault. It caused at least 2 of the sites to dump the host and move elsewhere. Ant 21:37, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

I think the spinoff lists would be better as one nested list so it's more clear which ones are based off what. Right now everything's either GFH or Not GFH, but it'd make more sense to show e.g. that Outboards is based on Mediarchive code. Anyone agree? Ant 18:48, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

Vandalism

I just reverted this page. The entire page was deleted by 203.12.164.5, and made to simply read "anal jizz loole."

Yeah, this page is a steady target of juvenile vandalism by GameFAQs members. Speaks volumes about their maturity level. Rhobite 14:30, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
Actually, it's not always GameFAQs members. I know a dozen SA members that regularly vandalize this for some reason. Why, I don't know. --Etaonish 18:21, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
I just checked the IP to see if some known GF user was responsible for it. It's a proxy server in australia. Ant 22:00, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised if a LUEser was responsible for it. --Ixfd64 05:35, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)

Next-Gen Gaming

Should Next-Gen Gaming be mentioned under the boards? Granted, it's not one of the most popular boards, but GameFAQs is a gaming-related site, and NGG is its closest thing to a "general gaming" board.

I agree, as a member(and a damn awesome one at that) we need a NGG section. so much history of the trolls. Hies TEJ! -FHomer

How recent is recent?

I removed that "recent" line on the bit about Conan O Brian since it is becomming old. Otacon2009

Survivor

Read through the entry. Not even a mention of the survivor board. I'll put in a word, see if I can't at least get a small write up from some of the others on there.

Someone can't count...

"Review Contributors is the board for all the review writers to talk about common interests. This board has been split to better categorize the discussions on it. It is now composed out of three boards: General, Help and Critiques, and Social."

I don't see what the problem is. The three boards are here, here and here. Unless there's a fourth board which nobody else here knows about, in which case feel free to point it out. 80.65.242.104 00:24, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Minor Change

The Flux Network's link is essentially dead, as ns1987 (or the patrons) got tired of that source. The correct link is www.thefluxnet.com, and the boards have reverted back to anotherFyre. The site is run by Mike "EpsilonX" Lasater.

Seperate article for the Gamefaqs boards. Yay or Nay?

I think what I did was good as the article was getting past the limit. Should I vfd the seperate article so it can remerge or was that a good idea?--203.29.151.3 04:46, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I say go for it. --Golbez 05:35, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. Andre (talk) 16:36, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
I concur. However, the article for LUElinks is locked if I remember correctly. Typhlosion 18:18, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Special Ops biased against IE?

Funny. When a site uses W3C standards correctly, they're biased against IE. Shouldn't someone with more editorial savvy (and less love for the Evil Empire) fix that?

Done. 郵便箱 22:07, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
rv'ing. Don't add false information (the "crashing" comment) unless you have facts to back it up. Ant 23:15, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
You're very dirty I see. You removed the code to crash Internet Explorer from your site. 郵便箱 09:44, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

I suggest changing the referernce of Jeff Veasley as a "Neo-Nazi" its funny yes, but why LUE/LUE2/LUElinks refers him to him as one is beyond me.

Jeff never sold-out he took what he made from the ground up and cashed in on it end of story

Error.

Someone change that "GameFAQs spinoff/clone wars" heading back the way it was (GameFAQs spinoff/clone boards). Whatever it was changed for doesn't make any sense.

Updating the spinoff wars

I added most of the spinoff wars (LUE2, JunkieZnat, and Darkside Legion) but a lot of it is incomplete and probably not correct. I don't know much about the DSL situation (espeically the conflicts) or what really happened with Tsi's LUE2 (who pulled it?). The JZN thing is correct - I was there for all its ups and downs.

"It was started and is maintained by Neo-Nazi Jeff "CJayC" Veasey."

So...after locking the page against vandalism, why is that part still as it is? --Evice 22:22, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. Andre (talk) 03:18, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Added a new spinoff board.

Added LUEFAQs to the original source section.

Concerning cleanup

Do we really need this much text about every spinoff board? And their feuds? Perhaps the feuds and stuff could be moved to a seperate page, say, GameFAQs message boards spinoffs. And, uh, does anyone have any idea who added the cleanup notice? Maybe the person who added it could specify what exactly is lacking in this article. It would be nice if we could get this up to featured article status. =D

On a side note, someone needs to take a new screenie of the main page. This one is saved as JPG for some reason and it would be better to use a PNG file. --Shoecream 05:44, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Sections GameFAQs spinoff/clone boards and GameFAQs spinoff/clone feuds could be deleted. They have little value. Vanity. Philip Nilsson 10:35, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Since these sections have been completely deleted from Wikipedia now, I'll go put them up on my site instead. Perhaps there people will have a bit more respect for the site's subculture and history. Ant 20:55, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
And I supppose NGG (NGG?!?!) and LUE are more important? Please. Whoever put those up seriously needs to rethink the importance and impact on GameFAQs.
They have an impact on the FORUMS, maybe. But to the site as a whole? Probably not. Most users of GameFAQs don't go anywhere near the forums, myself included. Just because it involved the forums doesn't mean it belongs in the GameFAQs article. Perhaps a GameFAQs boards article is in order? Mo0[talk] 00:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Major spnioff updating

I gave the spinoffs bit a real history, although not by any means complete nor completely accurate. Cna someone fix it up and confirm its accuracy? Thanks - hbdragon88

Yeah, here's the deal...

The grammar and spelling are still at a low. I'll do what I can but I know I am not knowledgable enough to make all these corrections assuredly, but someone with skills in English should take up the bane.

Remerged boards page

I remerged the message boards page into this page, because there's no reason to have two pages and the article is still just under 32kb. Andre (talk) 05:09, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you should've discussed this change before unilaterally moving it. A consensus was reached a while ago to keep these as seperate pages.
Looks like the only consensus was someone saying "maybe a GameFAQs boards page is in order." This isn't really a consensus. Andre (talk) 16:28, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
It is a lot more organized on a seperate page. Although I was against it initially, I see how much better the article is with a seperate link. Re-merge please... Hbdragon88 05:19, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The reason why the boards had a seperate page was because it was aproaching the limit and because the Something Awful Forums is a seperate article from it's main article, I thought that the GF community is active and divided enough to warrant a seperate article. Sure, not much will grow but it's abit like the spinoff descriptions but more useful as it's describing what the various communities have been since their foundation in late 1999 up until now as well as in the future.

Having it in the main article will do what the spinoff link section did: Be the spot where the mouse wheel clicks and the mouse being held towards the bottom of the screen. If it was just a single line linking to it, it'll leave the reader with the option of seeing the board's histories insteaad of "Oh oh, big space of the boards I've seen for the thousandth time. I'll hold it untill I pass that."

I know this as I do it and I bet some other people feel the same way. Re-inserting the board on a different page would remove the waffling on the main article and thus, making the article a higher standard.

Also in future, can you at least notify us prior so we can reach a consensus? Even if the article was in need of a cleanup, it still doesn't mean come in and bulldoze it and ask questions later.While I too should of asked before the creation of the board article, what I did get from it was a invisible agreement when I did notify this talk page. If you notified us before the merge we could of reached a proper and visible consensus- --203.29.151.4 14:19, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anyone can merge or unmerge a page. You don't need a consensus to do it. Andre (talk) 00:12, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Factionism

While I'm slightly flattered by my mention as a board "loyalist" in recent edits, I don't think this is the place to promote factionism. Many loaded words were used to present a skewed view of events on MBH, and thus the site in general. I'd like to remind that particular editor that this is a place for facts, not opinions. Please keep editorials off the wiki.

Addendum: In addition, the "ridicule" that new users asking obvious questions recieve is usually a) not by MBH regulars or b) deserved, as known users make joke accounts for joke questions. Again, I ask that the wiki be kept as unbiased as possible.

-The23rdMagus

Seperating the message boards?

I think it's time to sepearte the message boards list from the main GameFAQs article Hbdragon88 05:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I concur. Wanderer 00:01, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Rawr!!!

KOS user? I don't know what this is referring to...Kill on Sight?--Frosteey 02:39, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

LUELinks

LUELinks is a completely separate site from GameFAQs. It should not redirect. They are two different sites run by two different people.

Perhaps if someone could write an actual article about the site instead of "doesn't exist lolol", you could make a better case for its inclusion. However, the community has decided that Luelinks isn't sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia article. The decision is available at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Luelinks 2. Rhobite 20:37, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
I read said page, and a comment is that maybe if the LUELinkers were actually noted or represented, they wouldn't troll so much. A lot of it, I feel, is out of a feeling that they're being neglected or shafted.

Dude, have you been around? LLers (or someone, at least) keeps adding LUELinks to the spinoffs section, linking to the stupid .tk website and saying that it doesn't exist. Hunt back in the GameFAQs WIki history; you'll see it there. LL isn't taking it very seriously. Hbdragon88 22:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

GameFAQs is well-represented by articles here (too much, IMO) yet they still seem to add nonsense to this article all the time. I don't think it's correct to say that LUELinks people would stop trolling if only they had an article. Rhobite 22:17, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Small gripe

In the "Special Social Boards" section:

"Also noteworthy, the Zelda Social Board (also called ZSB), an enemy of LUE, is part of the Special Social Boards."

It's a bit redundant (as that board is alread mentioned), and a little inflammatory as well. Should it be deleted or rewritten?

Sashanan

After recent events, should the article be updated to reveal what hapenned?

Not notable. No. TheCoffee 2 July 2005 11:45 (UTC)
What happened involving Sashanan? He is one of the most senior moderators on Gamefaqs. Rdysn5 04:30, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Some vids, pics, and stories. Mostly exaggerated by LUEsers. --Asfalterisk 19:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

An Apology

Sorry about the inclusion of three insults. I had introduced this article on a message board I go to, and one person was unable to control his impulses and made the edit. Thanks for getting rid of it so soon. Ron Stoppable 10:02, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

History deleted?

It seems that a vandal erased the History section from the article and the change went unnoticed. I can't fix this because the article is protected at the moment. 郵便箱 07:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

Request on WP:RFPP. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. 郵便箱 05:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Bias?

It seems just a scan over this unwieldy large article has several problems with bias. Rants on increasing ad-placement, trolls, and anti-CNET comments are overtly common. Maybe less commentary and focus more information. History should really only be a couple paragraphs. Pranks could be a category, as well as: popular board references, statistics on users/FAQs/codes/etc., contests, and spinoffs. K.I.S.S. --Greyhawk0 08:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

This article has, as you can see, been edited by a large number of Gamefaqs users, and not enough actual Wiki contributors. It also gets vandalized almost every day... Amren (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

LUELINKS

Talk:LUElinks It's a start to a serious article about the site. It should NOT redirect here. LUElinks is in no way affiliated with GameFAQs.

--NSA 06:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Sections being deleted

Please be more careful when you revert vandalism and check if you may have inadvertently neglected to restore any content deleted by vandal(s). 郵便箱 08:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I was banned from GameFAQS for calling a guy a dolt.

What's up with that? Maybe you guys should include an article about the Moderator problem on GameFAQS. I first I didn't think there was much of a problem, obviously until I was banned. I've seen far worse posted on GameFAQS and everyone seems to complain about the "Evl moderators" So I was just wondering, what was your opinion on it all?

They're like this because people are going to far. If everyone would follow the rules more, they wouldn't be so cruel in reinforcing it. Sure, the new mods are a little outrageous but they'll sttle in soon. --Asfalterisk 11:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
snicker. This article isn't for complaining about your problems on the site. Toffile 12:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I've heard that alot of long time GameFAQers are leaving GameFAQs. Is this true? I've been there only recently. I'm not some long time veteran or anything. The people on GameFAQs can be friendly and helpful. Other times they can be completely and utterly rude. One time a member helped me step by step through a mission on a game. Another time, some members made fun of me for saying that I thinking of buying World of Warcraft and outright refused to answer my question until the topic fell off the board and mocked me for tewlve pages. Not only that, I went to the next gen board and said I liked the DS and a bunch of PSPers attacked me and just plained right out flamed me. Where were the moderators then, they said things far worse things than "Dolt". How many moderators are in GameFAQs? How many of them have been there since 2000? I'm also curious why the Moderators got "So strict all of a sudden". Did some thing happen in GameFAQs. Or is it part of "GameFAQs selling their soul" as some members claim? I'm curious what your opinion is on it all.

I've been a member of the site since 2001. "Long-time" users are constantly leaving the site...some get banned and don't come back, some just are knee jerk reactionaries and oppose any change...as for what gets deleted and what doesn't it depends on if it's marked or not. I haven't found the new mods to be very harsh...so I really can't comment on that. And please use ~~~~ to sign your comments on a page...Toffile 04:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it is true. I'm one of those long timers. First suicided level 36 account to be exact. 80.65.248.225 04:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh... I didn't know how to do that, I'll just sign my posts from now on. I don't tink the moderators are so evil, they've just have had a lot to deal with. It seemed to me during my time there that the people on the boards can be very bad sometimes. I think it was funny how I got banned really, I still think it's funny. I plan to go back there, I made a new account but i'm on "Read only" for around a week now. Pompadour Samurai 05:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Make a new one. Sometimes when an account gets banned, accounts will continually be set at read-only. They never change status either. Toffile 20:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, do I feel like a chump. That moderator really had it out for me I think. I never argued with the guy or anything either. Thanks for the info. I do miss GameFAQS. I'll try to refrain from saying anything derrogative until I'm a Elite however. I'm more worried however about my brother's account. I bought a new computer so I thought his account would be safe. But I remembered I went on my dad's computer once or twice. I remember he logged in on it once. I'm very worried about his account. He's been there since 2000 and should have somehwere around 1,5000 by now. I haven't been able to check it out becuase he changed the email information when he left for college. If his account did get bannned, is there any way for me to make a plea to spare his? It might be too late now however. Once an account gets banned, it can't be unfrozen huh? Pompadour Samurai 03:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Please refrain from making enquiries about GameFAQs in the article discussion page. While a few GameFAQs users (and Moderators) contribute to Wikipedia, you should be referring to the site (especially Message Board Help) for assistance regarding account issues. --Scottie theNerd 19:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Massive re-write in the future

This whole article needs to be completely re-written. The history section covers only a small scope of specific events, the spinoff section is way too detailed, etc. There needs to be more about contributions, etc. I do have the will to do it- just not tonight ^_^ ~RockMFR 164.107.197.49 06:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Merge

I feel that both SMS FAQ Completion Project and NES FAQ Completion Project should be merged into this article. Out of respect for the contributors to those articles, I am proposing a merge instead of being bold and merging them without a discussion. I feel that both articles aren't really notable. There are only 11 google hits for the NES article which doesn't really pass the Google test. Furthermore, the FAQs section of this article is a little on the skimpy side and this would give it relevent content. The primary purpose of GameFAQs is the FAQs after all. Thoughts? --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

One of the problems I see is that the projects are not official GameFAQs projects and not formally endorsed by the site; Rather, they are community initiatives. --Scottie theNerd 02:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
A large portion of the article is devoted to spinoffs which AFAIK aren't official GameFAQs projects either. It could also be argued that a (minor) difference between the two is that the spinoffs are community initiatives that don't directly contribute to the site, whereas the FAQ completion projects do. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 13:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm of the mind to remove the spinoff section. I do agree on the merging of the SNES and SMS Completion projects with this article though. --Scottie theNerd 13:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. However, I wouldn't be opposed to having a very small section of GameFAQs message boards overviewing the spinoffs as long as it stay encyclopedic. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the merge of the Completion Project articles. The spinoff thing is a totally different matter, but it would make sense to move it to the message boards article and shorten it significantly. 164.107.197.49 17:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the spinoffs section would be better truncated to just the first 2 paragraphs. The rest of it doesn't seem significant enough to warrant keeping. Fik 18:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The Project articles, since they're relatively short, can definitely be merged. I also agree with the shortening of the spinoffs section (not a complete removal of it, though. Just take out the specifics.). --dws90 04:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clear consensus. I went ahead and merged the articles into GameFAQs. I also condensed them both quite a bit, but if someone wants to add more detail the histories are available. NES Project article history and SMS Project article history. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

MODS, snitches and freaks! Things need to be changed!

First off I have been at Gamefaqs jsut after it had message boards. So I am not some new kid on the block to the site.

1. Mods get away with anything. The site needs improvments with mods! And if you mention anything like "Why do you mods <insert thing>" they delete your posts. They have power controls issues. CJAYC has the biggest one, I am disabled and one time years ago tried contacting him because I was mocked because of my spelling and people and even mods mocked me and kept deleting my topics and CJAYC told swore at me in an email and told me he could give a **** that I am disabled and thats no excuse or his problem. And yes a long time ago you were able to contact him. While I feel for all the work he has to do that really was no way to treat someone disabled.

Since then I have a new account and recently have been having problems with idiot mods again and their "over control". The site is mostly teens and power control mods.

BTW I bet this will be edited out always, godforbid anyone should speak the truth or have an opinion other then "All hail GameFAQS". The editing here and control is just like the control on GFaqs but they have more power here because they can change words around and make whole articles go away!

And before someone says "Don't bring this up here go the the forums". Yeah I would but I tried and was nice and got my account "warned". Yeah, theres no problems at Gamefaqs!

2. Snitches are a major problem too. No matter what you do even if its an accident or whatever someone is always there to turn you in! Heck it can be nothing and someone will twist it and turn you in and you won't even know its a against the TOS! They need a system to see who turned you in or something so we can see who the snitches are, I bet there are some realyl big ones that have nothing better to do then surf the forums and look for "TOS violating" topics! I should know, my friend is one of the people!

3. Freaks. The third biggest pain is grammer/spelling freaks and "others". I obviously can't help it and am not waiting an extra 15 minutes in a spell checker. Alot of people do nothign but piss you off by telling you what you spell wrong and what not. They need to be moderated. Make that a new TOS rule! Who cares!

This also goes with freaks like the ones that always go "Old news is so exciting". WHO the heck cares what you think! It may be old news to you but usually half the people don't know about it. They need some new rules like "No stupid remarks like..." and then list some! --BestBuyBeast666 07:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the Internet. This is Wikipedia; the Exit button is that way -> --Scottie theNerd 07:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. This a discussion page for an article in an encyclopedia. Any personal problems you have with any particular website doesn't belong here. However, any beneficial contributions to Wikipedia that you may have are more than welcome. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

-- This is beneficial. People need to know about the site. I've been to Wikipedia for millions of other things. I see alot worse "Discussions". It seems Wiki wants to keep to "nice" discussions and info about places, well that doesn't make sense seeing as how sites (more so message boards) have more then one side. If I talk about this stuff here in a discussion, which BTW one would think you can talk about it seeing as how it is called "discussion", hopefully they can't edit/remove it (to much). But then again Wiki doesn't seem to care seeing as how another popular page on Wiki lets people get away with editing and removing info that they don't want on their page.

Anywho, if this gets removed by Wiki or someone from GFaq it jsut goes to show that Wiki or GFaq doesn't allow "discussion" other then crap they want to hear. Although its weird that they don't want to hear "negatives" when below I see some negatives. BestBuyBeast666 11:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

As stated above, if you have problems with the site, keep it between you and the site. If you have something informative to write about the site, add it to the article. If all you've got is dirt you want to throw into the site and can do nothing but vandalise articles and slander the site's staff, please leave. --Scottie theNerd 12:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Adding/Removing External links

Can we reach some agreement as to what criteria we're following as to whether or not links remain in the list? Every edit I see in this article has someone adding links and the next guy removing them a few minutes later. --Scottie theNerd 06:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

We're following WP:EL. Hope that helps. Hiding talk 13:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

References

What references can we use? --Scottie theNerd 12:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

See verification policy, and also citation and reliable source guidance. Hiding talk 13:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I am aware of that. The question is: What sources would you use to verify an article like this? --Scottie theNerd 16:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I can't tell you where to source the article, I don't know enough about the subject. Are there any places it can be sourced from? The information must have come from somewhere, no? If not, information which can't be verified should be removed. We don't allow original research on wikipedia, and if the information can't be sourced somewhere, but has only been observed, then it can't be documented first hand by wikipedia. Hiding talk 19:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
All the information in the article is documented by the site itself and stored in archives linked to throughout the article, with essentially no "original" research. I'm interested in how one would verify an article about a popular website, as practically no credible sources are available for this kind of thing. --Scottie theNerd 08:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
If there are no reliable sources then it does constitute original research. If a website is popular, it will have received attention in reliable sources. Hiding talk 13:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • To clarify, per WP:NOR: Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".
  • If this article is a novel narrative or historical narration then it quite clearly is original research. If the article can only cite the actual events, then that is building a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". Hope that helps. Hiding talk 14:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Again, it comes back to the question: What reputable source would publish material relating to an internet site? --Scottie theNerd 14:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Many. Newsapapers and magazines constantly round up and refer to websites, there's a vast number of magazines which only cover the internet, for example .net. There also exist a plethora of books regarding the internet. I must be missing the thrust of your point somewhere. Hiding talk 15:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
There's almost no articles or books that use GameFAQs as a source. The only time that I know that it's appeared in mainstream media, is
  • a Penny-Arcade strip
  • A series of guidebooks that liscensed FAQs from authors of the site. [2] [3]
  • There was a radio interview with the site's founder. The only problem is that there are no transcripts of the whole thing and it's 4-5 years old.--Toffile 15:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
While there are some publications that do write articles on Internet sites, these sites are often obscure and plucked at random, rarely getting more than a page-long summary. The best source of information comes from the site itself and retrospective reports by its Administrators. Look at other popular websites with articles: GameSpot, Newgrounds, IGN, EBaum's World and Something Awful, to name some. Most of the "sources" used for these articles are sources from the sites themselves, and an occasional fleeting mention in some obscure blog or magazine. Even the parent company, CNET, lacks references other than itself. Yes, much of the information in the article, especially the itty-gritty details regarding community histories are a bit too deep in the grey area, but the essential, factual details are all archived and referred to throughout the article. If this is not enough to constitute as references, what would be? Unless you're Yahoo! or Google, it's unlikely that any Internet magazine will write a credible article on most of the aforementioned sites. --Scottie theNerd 15:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, for starters remove the grey stuff. Secondly, what are retrospective reports by administrators? Thirdly what blogs and magazines? To my mind they're acceptable as sources depending on the information being sourced. The important thing is that information is sourced and of encyclopedic quality. I can't comment on any of the sites listed, but if Toffile is right and books have been published based on information presented at the site, that affords a level of notability. It's not necessary to document every instance in which the site appearance changed, is it? The important thing is working out what information is of value to a reader. Does that help somewhat? Is there a recording of the interview? Hiding talk 20:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There are some recordings out there, but they're few and far between because of the age. I have a copy of it on another computer, but I can't get at it until mid-April.--Toffile 20:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This really seems to be a more general Wikipedia problem and is definitely not unique to this article. If I had the time or patience, I could go put the cite sources template on thousands and thousands of articles (as per Scottie's comment above). Wiki's policies concerning citing sources, especially for articles about internet websites and whatnot, are very weak. I really see no reason why this article continues to be targeted- yes, it would be nice to get some citations up, but Wiki's policies have virtually made this impossible for thousands (I'll go out on a limb and say tens of thousands) of internet-related articles. I think the time of random Wiki users would be better spent developing better policies, rather than trying to work out these policies on single pages (like this one). On that note... I've got the radio interview recording. I personally wouldn't consider it a reliable source of information, but it's what it is. 164.107.197.49 04:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC) (RockMFR)
  • I know it's not unique to this article, but I'm here at this article right now. When I move on and work my way across the other many articles, I'll be there. It would actually be a help if you did start tagging articles which have no references as unreferenced, that would help improve the encyclopedia. If you believe better policies are needed, get a user account and start proposing them. I'm interested why you don't see the interview as being a reliable source. Hiding talk 11:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Or, you could just log in, Rock =P. To Hiding: would user-run Wikis qualify as credible sources? --Scottie theNerd 12:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't consider itself a creditable source, so no, they aren't considered creditable. As a further expansion on the references tag, I'm certainly not meaning to target this article in particular, and I apologise if that appears to be the case. I think the tag is most of benefit to readers, because it says, look here's this information, it has no references, so take it with a bigger pinch of salt than usual, but it's here. I'd rather there were references than none, and I'd rather there were reliable sources than disputed sources, and I'd rather every article were featured, but I'm pragmatic; I'll take what I can get. Hiding talk 13:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violation, rewrite and citations

Okay, I noticed the article had text from [4] pasted in. That site declares the content Copyright © 2004 GameFAQsInfo.net so following WP:CV I had to revert to an early version and add stuff back in which wasn't in violation of copyright. I also took the opportunity to format the references, rewrite the copyrighted text and rewrite the article, removing information I take to be un-needed. I appreciate it isn't going to be to everyone's tastes, but I'd be grateful if people build from this rather than revert to a copyright violating version. I've added citation templates where I feel they are needed, I hope that and my usage of references helps clarify what I was looking for when I added the tag. Hiding talk 21:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm really calling BS on this one. I searched through the history of this article and found that as far back as May 8, 2004 the artcile had resembled what was allegedly copyrighted on GameFAQsInfo. A search on archive.org shows that the GFAQsInfo doesn't even have an archive page until June 11, 2004. I think that this is some nice circumstantial evidence that GFAQsInfo copied from Wikipedia, not the other way around. However, I do acknolwedge that it's not a smoking gun, and I know that it's not very credible to rely on the Wayback Machine to prove a point... - Hbdragon88 01:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
If you can prove that then its certainly worth letting the foundation know so that they can decide whether to file suit against GameFAQS for copyright violation. I apologise if you believe what I did was bullshit, I can only assure you that I was acting in good faith, and ask that you accept that fact. Hiding talk 12:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Make no mistake, I know that you are acting in good faith and doing what is best for Wikipedia. It's just that I feel so damn sure (but can't exactly prove it) that we came up with it first, not them. For instance, GFInfo also claims copyright to Hyena 20's "History of LUE" section, but I know that has appeared on other sites; it's Hyena 20's copyright, not theirs. I'm trying to find proof - but trying to access the "History of GameFAQs" page on the archive on any archive is inaccessible. I'll keep looking... - Hbdragon88 05:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
GameFAQsinfo, not GameFAQs. The sites aren't affiliated. --Scottie theNerd 12:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
My apologies, thanks for the correction. Hiding talk 12:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I finally nabbed a copy of the GF Info "History of GameFAQs" page that dates back to June 9, 2004 [5]. This is after than the very look-alike version on May 8, 2004 on Wikipedia. Before that the link is a dead link. Is this concrete proof that they stole from us? - Hbdragon88 07:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The history page on GameFAQsInfo.net was originally written on Wikipedia. I honestly don't know what the issue is here. And the copyright notice on the bottom of their pages is not exactly correct (they claim to have copyright on lots of stuff which they don't). Why are we even discussing this? The article needs to be restored. Either we can come to an agreement on this, or I will be bold. 164.107.197.49 06:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC) (RockMFR)

My reviews damn reviews

Well, I have done about 45 reviews in GameFAQs. On the 28th of March 2006, I checked to see if my 45th review got in. Yes, it said. It said accepted. But, my reviews dissapeared. AGH! I did reviews for games like Jedi Outcast or Star Wars: Obi-Wan. They all disappeared without a trace. And, I did not include E-Mails or addreses or copyrights in my review. They were just like normal ones. I dod not even steal peoples work. I did have those games. What the frekkin hell happened? Weirdy 7:17AM AEDST April Fools Day.

Wikipedia is not the place for this discussion.--Toffile 20:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with the site?

Someone visit the site now and tell me what's going on.

It's having technical problems caused by the cluelessness of its users. Fik 21:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

IMPORTANT NOTICE

Try going to gamefaqs.com. It has been shut down by the crazy fascist bastards that apparently own CNET. The Wikipedia article should be modified to reflect GamFaqs's current state.

Or it could be an April Fool's joke.--Toffile 00:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Whatever you do, do not scroll down to the end of that page. --Scottie theNerd 02:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, do NOT scroll down the page on April Fools Day. If you do, you will be banned from GameFAQs. *Wink, Wink* Weirdy 06:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Whew.

restored references, cleaned out external links

It appears somone reverted this article. I've restored references, referenced text, the references template, the citation templates and the external links. I'd be interested in hearing discussion on the article and ways to move it forward. Hiding talk 09:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've performed another copyedit, added a lot more citation neededs. You can see the references already used, it'd be nice to get the citation needed templates removed legitimately. The information must have come from somewhere, so can sources be provided? Otherwise, the information will fall foul of WP:NOR. Hiding talk 10:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, most of the information comes from either original research or were made in announcements long since gone, and naturally a corporation like CNET didn't make any announcements regarding its purchase of the site. The evidence was there, if you get my drift. --Scottie theNerd 11:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Sadly, if there's no way of accessing the information, then it is original research and will have to be removed. Do any of the announcements exist in the Internet Archive? Hiding talk 12:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Per WP:RS, bulletin board and message board posts aren't reliable sources. Can we get any better sourcing on this? Hiding talk 10:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Those "message board posts" are official announcements from the site's creator. The webmaster does not release site announcements anywhere other than through the boards. They're as good as any announcement on a corporate web site. --Scottie theNerd 10:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, what I'll do is add that to the footnotes then, that should prevent other editors removing them, or at least point them to the fact that removal should be discussed first. Hiding talk 11:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Right, I've added a note to that effect. Hiding talk 11:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The recent redesign

Even if GameFAQs has redesigned, it has not been dissolved into Gamespot. After protection is taken off, any redirects WILL be treated as vandalism Sceptre (Talk) 17:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to assume some pretense of authority, do it with some maturity please[6]. Fik 21:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No proof of 2.5million$

"Veasey collected a reported $2.5 million and agreed to a 2 year no compete clause. [citation needed]"

This should be removed to 'rumoured' 2.5million, since there is no source at all. And since it is a rumour it should be removed totally. The value is pure speculation.

  • I managed to find this while trying to gain clarification on that $2.5m figure. $2.5m is way off. Steel359 15:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

(2) ACQUISITIONS

On April 1, 2003, CNET acquired intellectual property and certain other assets of European Technology Forum, Ltd., an organizer of conferences and events aimed at the technology industry. On April 25, 2003, CNET acquired intellectual property and certain other assets of eRankings, Inc., a provider of news, reviews and in-depth information related to PC and video gaming. On May 6, 2003, CNET acquired intellectual property and certain other assets of GameFAQs.com, Inc, which provides an online community for users to post gaming strategy, hints, codes, tips and messages related to PC and video gaming. The total purchase price for all three acquisitions was $2.2 million. A total of $2.0 million was paid in cash with the remainder outstanding under a note payable that is to be paid within two years of the acquisition. The transactions have been accounted for using the purchase method of accounting. http://sec.edgar-online.com/2003/08/05/0001015577-03-000047/Section7.asp

Yeah. The total sum for all 3 properties was 2.2 million. The current reference says that C-Net paid 2.9 million to accquire 5 separate entities. There's no way the math will work in favor of the 2.5 million. I'm removing that entire claim.--Toffile 15:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)