Talk:Habbo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please read the following before questioning the article's coverage of the raids
When requesting that the raids be featured in the article, please note that they are already mentioned; see here. Please also note the following reasons why only one sentence is included:
  • No reliable sources are found to cite the claims of the raiders. Please note that images, forum/blog posts, and pages on unreliable websites are not reliable sources.
  • A limited mention of the raids in the article doesn't mean that the raids did not happen – no one is denying it.
  • Other articles having unsourced statements doesn't mean that this one can.
Archive
Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
? edit FAQ
Q: Should I be putting information into the article that only Habbo users would be interested in?
A: No. No matter the number of users or the amount of users that actually visit this article, this is still an encyclopedia, not a user guide.
Q: May I put my opinion into the article?
A: No. As this is an encyclopedia, everything is to be written in a neutral point of view and thus do not push your opinion.
Q: Should I add lists of Moderators, Furniture or Habbo Xs?
A: No. Put yourself in the article reader's position. You wouldn't need to know everything.
Q: Should I refer to people who use Habbo as "Habbos", "Players" or "Users".
A: Users. You should refer to people who use Habbo as Users as they are using a service.
Q: Should I include a mention of the raids?
A: Through general consensus, the raids should not be included because there are no verifiable citations.

Contents

[edit] This article is terrible

"Before asking to include mention of the raids in the article, please be aware that the raids are already mentioned in the article, under Reviews, awards and criticism. When discussing the raids on this talk page, please read Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources."

Firstly, the raids are a LOT more significant than 1 sentence; secondly, the original reason behind the raids was due to racism of the mods; Thirdly, using the "Anonymous on Fox 11" is as FAR from a reliable source as you can possibly go. By the same source, I could say that Habbo Hotel is a children's game and that a nonexistent gang enjoys destroying it. An article on an MMORPG should NOT tell someone every gameplay nuance of said MMORPG. Also, how is it that this horribly written article is longer than the articles on a Blizzard and E.B. White? Hell, this article is longer than the article on 4chan. Wow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soniczip (talk • contribs)

I wholeheartedly agree. The Wiki guidelines that place the use of stories by real-world news sources over sources such as blogs is usually make perfect sense, but not in this case. I did some Googling on "Habbo Raids" and every source was some sort of blog, forum, or YouTube video. I switched it to a "news" Google search, and there wasn't a single result.
There are simply no reliable third-party publications that talk about these raids, even if they are one of the most documented events in Internet history. The amount that the raids are mentioned is just a step above not mentioning them at all. The raids are too important to leave out.
Looking around the entries for other popular online communities, I see that there are plenty of citation holes for Fark, YTMND, and /b/. But in these cases, the facts are still presented, even if that means the articles have first or second-party sources or even (GASP!) a few "citation needed" labels. It seems that as a general rule, important facts (especially heavily-documented, undisputed ones) are still put into the entries, even if there aren't any real-world stories about them. There is really no reason to treat this entry any differently, other than being a stickler for the official Wikipedia rules.
News reporters and the other things that Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources simply almost never talk about what's going on in the online world. Perhaps there should be some sort of reconsidering of the rules for these types of entries, or else they will be either perpetually filled with holes or lacking in basic information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireproof88 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. That fox article is nothing but POV, and using a POV sources makes the article a POV article. Here's a little anecdote for why the raids should be included: Until very recently, we have had no complete skeletons of dodo birds. There have been bones, and drawings, but none enough to conclusively show exactly what a dodo bird might have looked like. The idea that since we could not conclusively depict the dodo bird therefore it never existed is obviously ridiculous, but it is tantamount to saying the raids never happened because no "legitimate" sources exist. 209.217.124.85 (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
No one is saying that the raids never happened because no legitimate sources exist – they are not included in the article because no legitimate sources can explain what the raiders claim are happened (that is, the racist mods, that other stuff). The article currently says that the hotel is often the victim to internet trolls. The fox article might be biased, but the current statement in the article isn't. 04:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the big, bold notice on the top can be a little more... aggressive. :) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's handling this terribly. They cant demand IRL credible news for everything, especially online things like these raids. The raids wont be covered in real news (excluding that half second clip of a raid in the ridiculous fox bit on anonymous), and just because its not covered doesnt mean wikipedia shouldnt have more than a sentance on the topic. user:Kaneda435
There is a wiki policy that would over ride or complement WP:RS, Wikipedia:Consensus. The consensus is proved by "A limited mention of the raids in the article doesn't mean that the raids did not happen – no one is denying it.". Wikipedia:Consensus is an Official Policy, WP:RS guideline. It passes WP:FRINGE since the raid is a mainstream view. Consensus says it is. Regarding WP:REDFLAG
  • "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources", not an exceptional claim.
  • "surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known" due to repeated incidents and aruging in the chatroom (although this is my WP:OR, im sure others will agree) and visual disruption by identically dresses users, I conject most Habbo users are aware of vandalism/trolling/bad people on Habbo, so this is widely known.
  • "surprising or apparently important reports of historical events not covered by mainstream news media or historiography;" sadly fails, someone should check if Habbo has updated any policies since the raids or commented about it itself.
  • "reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;" passes, trolling is common in the internet/internet communities, look at slashdot for how common it is.
  • "claims contradicted by, or with no support within, the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents of such claims say there is a conspiracy to silence them." pass, no sources denying the raids.
So it passes (does not qualify as redflag) on 4 out of 5 flags for WP:REDFLAG. On WP:VERIFY
  • "Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves.", we can replace "articles" with "section"/"paragraph", that would allow us to quote websites of whoever did the raids, or whoever claims responsibility (who that is, is not upto me to decide).
From WP:NOR
  • "Unsourced material obtained from a Wikipedian's personal experience, such as an unpublished eyewitness account, should not be added to articles. It would violate both this policy and Verifiability, and would cause Wikipedia to become a primary source for that material." there are many quotes of people who witnessed the raids online im sure, they aren't unpublished, although the internet publishing does lessen source quality.
Still we have consensus to agree that the raids happened. WP:COS part of WP:NOR allows wikipedians to write about what they saw in the raids. Even if it was a hoax, WP:HOAX would allow us to mark it as such if it passes "notability". I say be bold and put it in, this talk page has enough consensus to do it. My opinion is, we should be careful about identifying any group by proper name (listing random) such as "DrinkOrDie", "Cult of the Dead Cow", "Chaos Computer Club", "Legion of Doom", "Masters of Deception", since that opens the biography can of worms, best would be to give a general outline of the group such as "a part/group/coalition of users of 4chan/*chan/* IRC channel on * IRC Network". Patcat88 (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
can someone correct that this was not solely anonymous, and also that the anonymous that performed the raids as "suit nigras" are different from the ones who are protesting Scientology? if you knew anything about how anonymous worked, you'd know that there is much antimosity towards Project Chanology by the anonymous that raided habbo.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.235.28 (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Please dont talk about the 13yr old girl who was kidnapped by the 36 year old man his name was ethan

[edit] Major edit

I did a major edit and renamed "Habbo Hotel" to "Habbo", as Sulake now only mentions the brand as "Habbo" and rarely refers to it as "Habbo Hotel". I reformatted the article to meet those changes. I mentioned the fact that Habbo is now a social networking website as Sulake refers to it as that on their explanation of the site, hence I removed everything about Habbo being a "game" and changed all "players of Habbo" to "users of Habbo", I also changed the infobox to meet this. I have also removed the article from the "Video game" WikiProject, as it is clearly not a video game.


Because of this name change, I have requested that this article, along with the talk page, be moved to Habbo, as oppose to Habbo Hotel. --Supermatique (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Habbo Hotel → Habbo — Refer to the comments left in Talk:Habbo Hotel#Major edit. —Supermatique (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support as per reason suggested. --Supermatique (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per nom --Lox (t,c) 08:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Needs more criticism

No-one has addressed views of Habbo being an efficient method of relieving kids of their pocket money/allowance. Not to mention the absurdity of handing over cash for pixels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.158.55 (talk) 02:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

But if this is a discusion we should modify!!!! It makes no sense. Also Habbo is a great fun game for children above 12. Kids should have fun!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.229.223.164 (talk • contribs)

It seems no one is volunteering to do this, so to balance the weight you may want to find and read some negative reviews. –Pomte 23:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Probable source for adding more info on raids...

Came across this article while checking the 4chan article. The third paragraph from the bottom has a slight mention of the raids on Habbo, linking it to 4chan on the second page. Its from Wired Magazine, which many would believe to be a reliable source. Thoughts to adding its info into this article? --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 22:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I added the only detail there. –Pomte 23:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Turning off the Bobba Filter

Where is the option of being able to turn off the Bobba Filter? I am a registered user of Habbo USA and we do not have that option.Dobby421 (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

OK we actually DO have that option now, Habbo was updated to include this feature on February 27, 2008. Dobby421 (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Habborella

should it be said in the article that all the guest rooms are now part of the haborela cruise ship?81.108.233.59 (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this is a Valentines Day theme and after Valentines Day the Haborella theme will be removed and the navigator layout will return to its usual format. Dobby421 (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced, Inacurate Comment

The average user spends $15-$20 a month, with some secretly spending their parents money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.49.77 (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Good spot. I removed it. Dreaded Walrus t c 19:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The hacking of February 20, 2008

Should we add a section about how Habbo was (possibly) hacked on February 20, 2008 to the main article? I moved the paragraph below from the section above this to here.


On February 20, 2008, Habbo USA was hacked by a character known as finch-HIMself at approx. 3 PM. Apparently, finch-HIMself went to the most-known trade room to Habbo which was owned by HAPPY. Finch has gained access to the Habbo house keeping sites being able to get access into a few moderator and staff accounts, MOD-kitka, CrestHawk. Few moderator accounts have been to be said deleted. At 5:30 PM, Habbo USA shut down for maintenance break. At 7:00 PM, a report was read by Habtips DJ Yoshi in which he said, "According to Habbo Officials, Habbo USA could be shut down from anywhere from the next 5 hours to next week." That report is yet to be confirmed from Sulake. Before the USA Hotel shutdown, many locked their rooms to prevent Finch to come in. According to other Habbo players, Finch was only looking for Habbo Club Members and was trying to get their furniture. Habbo Club Members was advised to dress as normals and hide their HC badge. According to DJ Dark on Habtips Radio, "Okay Habbos, I've been told that player accounts have not been deleted, but account furniture and credits might not be restored." Many Habbo players feared the permanent shut down of Habbo Hotel USA. Some even said that even if the game was restored, they would not play anymore because their furniture and credits could not be restored. It has also been said that Finch was banned from Habbo USA at one point. Somehow, Finch unbanned himself. Dobby421 (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It would need pretty extensive sourcing, I would say, to even be considered for inclusion. Dreaded Walrus t c 01:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
That was a large lie you do know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.153.214 (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It was a lie? Really? Someone had typed the above paragraph without any headings or sources, so I put it in here to see if anyone knew anything.Dobby421 (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No, this was never a lie as I have been playing this game and have been a victim of it. My habbo account was HabBrett and I got banned for recieving some of the fake coins. It was unfair, and I was unbanned as they took the coins.

This Message Is from One fo Finch-HIMself's Friends From Habbo AND Real Life. Yes, All This hacking Is true. Seeing I was at His House, WATCHING him hack Habbo USA. MY Habbo Username is: Aldo-Clemenzi During the Hacking I went home and went to the room is was in. He was Taking furni, coins, and mod Account. Please Message me for questions.

[edit] THE ROLE PLAY

Role Play is the most important part of habbo, i made a section on it in the article, but it was deleted!! SSholden (talk) 03:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Your addition was unsourced original research. Also, please add new talk page comments at the bottom of a page, thanks. swaq 15:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Habbo hotel.co.uk/sulake/hacker/icarly habbo accused me of being a hacker but im not so damn habbo ban it wipe it off the internet

[edit] Several changes

I think that some changes are in place for the Habbo article.


Group pages


Users can create groups and design a badge to display on their Habbo Home next to their avatar while in the Hotel. Each group also has a homepage which acts similarly to a Habbo Home, but the group owner and group administrators can only edit it. The majority of the website's content and promotions organised by the site's management is now displayed in groups.

With Release 22, users are now able to link a room to be their 'group headquarters'. This link will be displayed in the Group page's 'Group Info' box.


Minimail


The Minimail service was introduced in Release 22. The Minimail allows users to send message in e-mail-like-form to their online or offline friends via the website. Mass minimail is also available, where users click multiple friends in their Habbo Console and click a button on their Console to be directed to the website where they are able to compose their message and send it.


Instant Messaging


The Instant Messaging features now allows users to communicate with other users or their friends easily without the hassle of Minimail. The Instant Messaging feature is like the MSN Messenger. Users are able to freely communicate with other users in real time, unlike the Minimail. Khaizz (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)