Talk:GameFAQs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the GameFAQs article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Featured article star GameFAQs is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 5, 2007.
Famicom style controller 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.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of Mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:
Archive
Archives
GameFAQs
GameFAQs message boards

Contents

[edit] Technical/platform section

I've been thinking of adding a section that details the specs of the servers, the software used by the site, and other technical things. Any thoughts on this? I don't have much to work with in terms of references, though I think it might be possible to prod CJayC into releasing some of the historical information (and maybe some pics of old servers) if we want to include it here. --- RockMFR 18:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Specs are technical stuff, and Wikipedia doesn't list the prices of items or the computer specs for playing computer games. This should be the same situation, unless it is important to the history of the site. hbdragon88 02:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why not as long as we don't give undue weight to it. – Steel 13:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change of advertisements

Yesterday, GameFAQs made a large change in the placements of their advertisements, which has had a lot of users up in arms. I don't contribute to wikipedia very much, so I'm uncertain if it aims to cover these sorts of things in relations to websites, and I'm also not sure what sort of citations would be applicable to this sort of thing. However, it is certainly a notable development, because already I have seen quite a few people threatening to withdraw their contributions from the website. This would be especially bad for GameFAQs because it runs almost entirely on what the community contributes. -"capgamer" 64.13.95.106 19:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's really going to have an impact, I suspect that the gaming news websites will have a story on it. Once they do, we can mention the incident here, with a reference to one of those stories. -Chunky Rice 19:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Works for me, thanks. "capgamer"64.13.95.106 22:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The ad changes are only temporary as said in the announcement board. Furthermore, "few people" withdrawing their contributions is not notable and difficult to cite/prove, and the claim can only be established through original research. As Chunky said however, if it becomes notable and mentioned by reliable sources, then it will or should be added into the article. --BirdKr 14:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spinoffs

Why are editors not discussing the changes instead of reverting them silently? --72.84.55.195 02:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

GameFAQs2 is quite clearly a non-important spinoff website. "There is approximately 1 registered user currently using the message boards." The UpLUEd link is of absolutely zero importance to our readers, as it can't be accessed by them. --- RockMFR 02:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
There aren't many people browsing most of the listed spinoffs, either. And readers can't access LUELinks, but it is mentioned in the article. --72.84.55.195 02:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Archive2 contains the gory details of the debate on whether to include LL or not. WP:THIRD was for the inclusion. hbdragon88 08:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering why the MSB_FTW information was deleted? The community came from GameFAQs, has 50-60 users, and passed the 500,000 post mark in just over a year. Jasont82 17:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Relatively speaking, it's just not that large. I'd like to have some more of the larger communities listed here, but your spinoff is probably one of the smaller spinoffs that have come from GameFAQs. --- RockMFR 17:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Post count is no indication of notability, and 50-60 users is nothing compared to the millions of accounts on GameFAQs. --Scottie_theNerd 20:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The only spinoff that may be close to making it in here would be GameFAQs Hell, but since it's defunct that won't happen. Even that probabyl didn't have enough users. Wizardman 20:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
True, but the header isn't "Spinoff Websites that Come Close to Challenging GameFAQs in Size", it's just "Spinoff Websites". And there is a difference between a person who opens a board and it never gets off the ground, and a group of an entire Social Board that opens its own board and has good success. Jasont82 21:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
50-60 users is not notable. If LUElinks, with 10,000 users, barely gets a mention, your little site doesn't have a chance. 70.43.199.66 00:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Luelinks isnt actually a website. It belongs more on an urban legend website than Wikipedia. Why would a mod allow Luelinks to be posted? All logins given reveal a blank page. It doesnt exist. Someone prove me wrong if someone would be dumb enough to think it is acutally real (Metalmoses 02:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC))

If you do some research, despite all the public "Luelinks does no exist", you could find plenty of clues that it does exist and is a huge site.(Dskzero 14:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)).
Give me a break please, this is getting very ridiculous. The Internet Archive has a picture of LUElinks when it was temporarily opened up. Then Llamaguy, or whoever, let the stats be shown to the public. It exists. The Internet Archive is never wrong. hbdragon88 02:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Photoshop is whatever you want it to be and your just another one of the people that fall for this joke. I remember when those stats were made up and submitted by irrelevant parties. I cant believe people would actually believe this. (24.187.47.92 04:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC))

I can't believe you're doubting the existence of LUElinks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.75.100 (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding edit by RockMFR on July 9 at 23:39

Can you justify how bold and italic tags are "among the few" tags allowed on the boards? In the page you post as a reference for said information, it only states the usage of bold/italic tags (despite further testing which is not officially stated that p, strong, and probably other tags work as well). Why not just word it better or simply state that bold and italics are the only allowable markups allowed on the board, as per the Board Basics page? I want Rock to answer this -- Scottie and others, stay away. Dbm11085 05:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this a quiz of some sort? :) I guess the best solution would be to change the source to better document its software. Hmmm... well, the source right now explains how to do bold and italics tags, implying these can be used on the boards. However, it does not specify that these are the only tags. Nor does it say anything about what is "allowed" on the boards. Hmmm... I'll reword this a bit. --- RockMFR 06:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
No quiz. I know you don't like me (for immature reasons no less), so I was hoping you'd respond instead of pretending you didn't read my posts like I had the impression you did in the past. >_> Dbm11085 05:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 8-bit Atari

The article reads "8-bit Atari". Assuming it regarded the Atari 2600, it's incorrect. I could be wrong but I thought the 2600 was 4-bits.

Well, there's Atari 8-bit family. Surprisingly, the Atari 2600 article doesn't say how many bits it is. hbdragon88 21:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The article claims the 2600 used the 6507, an 8-bit CPU. --- RockMFR 02:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit-protection for today? (Featured Article)

Judging from the long list of reverts in the half-hour since this article got FA status, I think it merits edit-protection for at least the remainder of the time it's on the front-page. Musashi1600 00:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That isn't done. Having the most visible article on an encyclopedia that can supposedly be edited by anyone be uneditable by unregistered users would put off a lot of first-time visitors. -Elmer Clark 02:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The last 50 edits on this page have been all vandalism. I think the level calls for semi. At least it seems that way on WP:AN. hbdragon88 03:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
That seems fairly typical of main page articles. This one is probably a bit higher but not that much. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Wii got its good share of attacks as well. And the vandalism is rather childish (usually a full revert is enough) contrary to some math or science articles where the vandalism is harder to catch. -- ReyBrujo 03:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Someone also put a request for protection at WP:RFPP. --Hdt83 Chat 03:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Layout question

I think it'd make more sense to put the FAQs section above the message boards, as the FAQs are the main focus of the site and that should follow in the article. ~~ Gromreaper(Talk)/(Cont) 00:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. -- ReyBrujo 03:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
tahts desputable these days... the message boards in total get more hits than the faqs pages.--58.111.134.238 11:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Life, the Universe, and Everything notability

I tend to agree that there is no reliable reference stating LUE is notable enough to be given so much importance. We have an archived page of the registration page, the forum itself and a message in the GameFAQs board, but no real references, no interview, no sources other than those. It is a weak claim of notability that cannot be demonstrated, and therefore the article would benefit by removing it. -- ReyBrujo 05:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Infact the information is wrong. The page says "since its creation" LUE has caused problems. This is totally untrue. LUE was a board of intelligent discussion for many years before it turned into posting random garbage and only after this did LUE start the board invasions and other things etc. There is also no source that it is "one of the most well known board on gamefaqs".--58.111.134.238 11:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
But it is one of the most known boards on GameFAQs. Anyone that says differently is lying. Common knowledge doesn't need to be cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.75.100 (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
What you're referring to as common knowledge is original research, and anecdotal research at that. If you haven't conducted a survey, it would be difficult to say so with certainty. Leebo T/C 16:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I personally don't believe that LUE is really that much of an integral part of GameFAQs as a whole. True it may big something big as far as the message boards go, but that's it nothing more. Besides its been given enough attention on GameFAQs why give it anymore here?Venomscarnage (talk) 13:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Venomscarnage 10:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, so this has been brought up again, once again with the "notability" argument. Notability applies to articles as a whole IMO, not information contained within. Would it perhaps be better to expand the LUE section into a general "Boards" section? --- RockMFR 17:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability the page itself WP:N does only apply to the article itself, but it's mostly routine for editors to demand third party coverage for covering events and etc. JuJube and I have been waging war on Keith Howard for months on people rotuinely reinserting material from a web pardoy series. I suppose it's a case of WP:WEIGHT that only LUE is covered, but if it was shifted to boards in general it seems like WEIGHT anyway since no other publication has seen fit to comment on the boards themselves, only on the site as a whole. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As a member of LUE myself, I really don't think it's notable. It's private, and it's no longer the big deal it once was on GameFAQs. People rarely ask about it on other baords any more. LUE has pretty much calmed down; the users have matured and the invasions have stopped. Wikipedian06 (talk) 06:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

Hey, I noticed that this article is the featured article of the day on the main page. Wanted to congratulate you guys on that. When I noticed it, I took a look at the full article, and it's obvious you guys worked VERY hard to get this up to FA status. And at the end of Character Battle VI, no less! Congratulations to you all! Anakinjmt 17:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is a blatant ad

And that it is both a featured article and on the home page is indicative of gigantic failure of judgment. Everyday hundreds of articles are deleted for portraying the same characteristics as this site. That my initial ad warning tag was removed without discussion or comment is unwarranted. Address the issue. (Bjorn Tipling 17:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC))

(A) That you think this page is an ad and that it is indicative of a failure when hundreds of other people have not says more about you than it does about the process. (B) This article clearly fits our notability guidelines for web sites. If you think that this article should be deleted, you can wait until after it's off the main page and nominate it. I have a pretty good suspicion what the outcome will be. (C) Featured article status is independent of notability. That is to say, any article that won't be deleted on a trip through AFD can (at least in theory) become a featured article. Raul654 17:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
A more constructive approach might be to recommend changes if you think the text is promotional. Covering a company as a subject does not equate to advertising. Leebo T/C 17:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I feel that my approach was constructive. My recommendation is to drop adjectives that serve little information other than act as unwarranted intensifiers for ad like self-promotion. Also someone ought to censor users like Raul654 when they make personal attacks. Anyways, I don't have the energy or inclination to deal with this negativity, I was just doing what I thought was right. (Bjorn Tipling 18:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC))
Please see WP:POINT. Tagging any page on the main page, especially the FA, is disruption. Whoever supported promotion to FA clearly thinks it isn't. Will (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Raul654 didn't make any personaal attacks, and I don't see how his comment would be construed as negativity. Leebo T/C 18:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I really have to agree with Btipling on this one. This is the type of artacle that has no real place on wikipedia, much less be a fetured artacle and MUCH MUCH less be te artalce of the day. -Samnuva 22:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
If his concern is legitimate, then he should be able to outline passages or words that are contributing to the problem...would you like to do so, BT? Or do you not have the "energy or inclination" to back up your own statements? Raul made no such personal attacks, at least his argument was concise and well thought out, as well as constructive... and your "crying wolf" is self servicing in that it serves to deflect away from the fact that you're being a little ridiculous. Thesetrixaintforkids 23:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Any specific suggestions? --- RockMFR 23:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

When you read a press release or a information pamphlet from a company, all of the content is usually true. But it's not really correct is it? It's decidedly one way, and that's the problem I have with this article. The information is accurate, but the language is just not right. Some specific examples:
  • "where readers "can get almost any information" regarding game strategies."
  • "The site hosts a large and active message board community."
  • "GameFAQs is consistently cited by The Guardian as one of the top gaming sites on the Web, and the site has been positively reviewed by Entertainment Weekly.[5] Additionally, GameFAQs.com is one of the 200 highest-trafficked websites according to Alexa"
  • "Due to the high popularity of the GameFAQs boards.."
The information isn't necessarily untrue, but it's decidedly one way. I look at this article, and to me it seems pretty obvious how much it seems like an ad. I don't know why other people don't see that. This isn't the first time I've seen a FA that's just bugged me, so I've decided to pay more attention to the FA process. Also note I never said the article should be deleted, and maybe I did come on a little strong. Sorry about that. (Bjorn Tipling 00:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC))
There is a lot of detail in this article ! Impressive in itself, but there may actually be too much detail to the point of triviality (note: I mean to say that a reduction in some of the details would make the article clearer, NOT that those details are trivial in themselves). Consulting the Neutrality (NPOV) and Manual of Style guides would probably be helpful. DJ Barney (talk) 02:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is FA? This is main page?

You have to be kidding. Three quarters of its references are from the site itself and should be thrown out. There is no question GFAQs is notable - but this article fails WP:RS hard. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 20:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Take it to WP:FARC then. Will (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not completely familiar with each reference, but primary sources are not automatically disallowed. A lot of them are simply official announcements from site administrators for verification purposes. They're not unreliable. Leebo T/C 20:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:SELFPUB...maybe OK in the case of extremely notable things like the site's creation and some history, but not in the case of minor stuff like LUE being shut down or something. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 21:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured and proposed for deletion within one day?!

I for one think this is rubbish. New users see the article and click on it - bam! A great big "Proposed for deletion" banner. Sheer rubbish. Either remove the tag or delete it, but for goodness' sake get something done! WeBuriedOurSecretsInTheGarden 20:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

AFD speedily closed. spryde | talk 20:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Children :) I prefer 0.999..., which was nominated for deletion on May 2006 and 5 months later became featured ;) -- ReyBrujo 00:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POTD Redirect

I found Potd redirects here. I find nothing on the page which says potd, so why does it link here? I also added a selfref to WP:POTD. — Jack (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted it. I should have tagged that crap for speedy deletion instead of redirecting here. --- RockMFR 22:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Primary sources

Based on some comments at the featured article review, I decided to review all the sources that are listed as being published by GameFAQs in this version. In the end, I skipped the ones that are almost certainly OK (43-47 and 70-80). All in all, good job! The following are the only ones I found that look questionable:

  • 19: Doesn't support the date.
  • 25: I see nothing about IRC/Chat on the linked page.
  • 38: Supports the authorship, but not the date.
  • 39: Supports the number of boards, but not the number of topics/messages per day.
  • 81: Supports that the difference in that contest is three, but not that that is the smallest difference ever.

This is not to say any of the content sourced by GameFAQs sources actually belongs in the article (that's a different discussion in which I have no real interest), just that the information does seem to be supported by the given references without original research. Anomie 16:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection. Yay or nay?

I personally believe this page should be at least semi-protected due to the fact that this page tends to become a target of vandalism quite a bit. I'm certain that others here would agree with me as well. Venomscarnage (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Not really necessary. Enough people watch this page to keep it clean. --- RockMFR 21:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

I was wondering whether we should add a "Criticism" section--there has been some major criticism of the GameFAQs moderators' ability to catch trolls, and their 'blindness', as well as unfair warnings and post removals. There are a couple pages at Urbandictionary about the mods as well, all negative... 206.248.178.249 (talk) 03:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, a lot of stuff gets modded that shouldn't have been. It's happened to me a few times; I'm known as Luigifan18 over there. --Luigifan (talk) 04:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the criticism always comes from the ones who were modded for doing something they shouldn't have done. Things are far more lax than they used to be, no need for a criticism section. PLus it would fail WP:RS anyway. Wizardman 04:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Find reliable sources that support such criticism, and there's no reason not to include it. Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source, and anonymous users submitting slanderous "definitions" of moderators' names is not "criticism". --Scottie_theNerd 04:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
And Scottie comes in to lay the smack down on the users even outside of the site :P. But seriously, this has been brought up a lot and finding a real source for such claims is nigh-impossible. The only criticisms that comes from the users is from those who usually don't read the ToS/Assume that the rules on the boards are a lot more lax than they are as Gamefaqs has a fairly strict set of rules compared to other communities.134.129.71.172 (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The level of "strictness" at GameFAQs isn't particularly notable. I've gotten permabanned from the shut-down Nintendo NSider message boards for a single censor bypass, with no prior moderation history. Wikipedian06 (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Criticisms don't necessarily have to pertain to the message boards. There are criticisms about the pure ASCII FAQs being dated, when other services like IGN Guides allow writers to post screenshots, diagrams, and other visuals within their guides. I don't have a source but I'm sure this has been brought up before. Wikipedian06 (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The screen shots, diagrams, and other visual items have most likely been brought up. I agree with criticisms not just relating to the boards. It’s supposed to extend on the site as a whole. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No mention of FAQ Bounties / ETC under the contest section?

I'm not sure if it would be a worthy contribution to the article to swap (or add) mention of the FAQ Bounties to the "contest" listing in the article. I suppose the FAQ Bounty part of the page is at home in the FAQ section, but it would also seem fitting to go in the contest listing. Then again, it would seem superflous to mention it twice - but out of place to exclude it from the FAQ section. I'm not sure what the best course of action is, or if it should just be left alone. --Kts123 (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mission Hill church burning/ArCEn

Many CE regulars are aware of this incident, from earlier in the month (I'm a CEtizen myself). What I'm asking is, since it has notable news coverage (from a CNN affiliate), as well as the fact that GameFAQs and CE themselves have been explicitly mentioned, should it be added to the article?

Text link Youtube link to news report

Blue Mirage (talk) 05:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is rather unimportant. The question is - will someone looking for information about GameFAQs want or need to know about it? I think the answer is no. --- RockMFR 00:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] slang on gamefaqs

i just want to know what is trolling flame shields and bump mean —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.239.91.160 (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

When a post is made for no purpose other than to move a topic back to the front of a forum, it is called a "bump." Most people simply type bump when bumping a topic. Trolling is when posts are made simply to annoy people or elicit an emotional response. Flame Shields are "used" to "protect" the poster of controversial material from flaming (hostile or insulting response). Typical use would be "Such and such a game isn't worth playing; the battle system is boring and repetitive *holds up flame shield*" Baron von HoopleDoople (talk) 10:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)