Talk:Habbo Hotel/Archive 7

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

Written like an advertisement

This article is written like an advertisement (overly positive,a buttload of details, etc). However, the protection on the page means I can't add this myself. Could someone do it for me?80.247.146.169 13:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Y Done -- Kai talk 08:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article reads like it was written by (and is regularly being redacted by) a PR firm working on behalf of Habbo. This is becoming a huge problem on Wikipedia, particularly with tech/"new economy"/Web 2.0 firms. Wikipedia is not a billboard. Editors beware. Kwertii 19:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Which sections of the article are written like the advertisement? The article as a whole is not written like that, and was not intended to be written like one. It helps to actually let people know what is wrong with the article so it can be fixed, instead of complaining on the talk page about how bad the article is. –Sebi ~ 08:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's mostly the list of features, the way high reviews for the website are placed, and the way the whole thing sounds like the back of the box for a video game.196.43.65.130 14:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This is only a suggestion, but I think that someone here should sit down with someone who doesn't play Habbo and ask them to read the article. If they look at something and say "huh?", it's probably unnecessary information. Before deleting anything, though, reply here with what sections were noticed. Might not be the best way to go about cleaning the article, but at least it would (hopefully) be un-biased. YodaOfDarkness 05:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I've never played Habbo Hotel, and don't plan on it. So, I've had a read through the article, as recommended. The very first sentence, the lead sentence, does come across as a bit unencyclopedic, almost like something that you would expect to see on the back of a flyer for the site, or on a "Why register?" link. This sentence, from History:

The second member of the Hotel chain was launched in the United Kingdom in January 2001. Since then, the Hotel chain along with its user base has continued to grow.

Is a bit curious. It makes out like the program is a real chain of hotels, or that the article is written in-universe. Surely it should say something along the lines of "The service was also launched in the United Kingdom in January 2001, and has since been expanded to 29 countries in total, most recently Russia" (this sentence could then make the second-to-last sentence in the lead section obsolete, too).
In Habbo Exchange, "Habbo Exchange is currently available on all Hotels running on Release 12." should probably be changed to something like "Habbo Exchange is currently available on all servers running on Release 12.", again as "Hotels" is a bit unusual to read. It might be the term preferred by the company, but Wikipedia obviously isn't meant as a mouthpiece for an article's subject.
The same problem exists with Inside The Hotel.
In-game games. This section contains one of the things that I hate the most about Wikipedia. Not necessarily about Wikipedia itself, but about the type of edits that videogame articles tend to attract. That is, the article directly addressing the user. Usually in a way that wouldn't look out of place on GameFAQS. One of the first things I do when I read a Wikipedia video game article for the first time, is do a Ctrl+F for "you". In this instance, it's "The points you gain in Snow Storm are shown in place of your motto while in the Snow Storm lobby as well as on the users Home Page.", which should probably be "The points a user gains in Snow Storm are shown in place of the user's motto while in the Snow Storm lobby as well as on the user's Home Page."
Another thing that always riles me when reading articles, is seeing words like "recently", "this year", or "last month", or other things that don't apply indeterminately. It's WP:RECENTISM at its worst. In this case, the example is in Habbo Credits: "A new feature allows players to purchase [...]". New? It won't be new in a few months time, and I have no idea of how long that particular wording has been in the article anyway. It could have been added months ago, but I don't know, because it only says "new". Anyone who has knowledge of the 'game' should probably change it to "A feature added in MONTH YEAR", which will futureproof the article. A similar example occurs later down, in an image caption: "The new Release 12 safe-trading dialog box". It's not new when earlier on, the latest version is listed as "Release 14.1_b10". The Habbo Club section has a perfect example of how to word these things: "March 2007 saw the release of 15 new pieces of exclusive furniture [...]". All such uses of "new" in the article are acceptable, and aren't related to 'length of time from now'.
The article is full of stuff that is of little to no relevance to people who haven't played the game and don't plan on it. One example being:

When using the Navigator, players can search for certain guest rooms by either typing the first few letters of the room name, or the owner's user name into the search bar.

And? Most online games have search functions. In fact, a vast majority of the article is of very little interest to those who haven't played the game. Do we really need a section on the rules of the minigames on offer?
I actually have to go somewhere now, so I won't continue, but I shall mention a few more things.
  • This article needs to have spelling standardised. The article uses the spelling customize, yet also uses the spellings colour, theatre, catalogue, utilised, and possibly others (I just did a quick scan through). I don't care whether the article goes AmE, or BrE, but it should definitely be standard.
Sorry to have kinda deviated from the original track. --Dreaded Walrus t c 15:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I made some of your suggested changes. What could be done next, so we can finally remove this advert tag? Sebi [talk] 23:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The details about the payment methods: "...can be bought by players using credits via a variety of payment methods, including (but not limited to)..." sound like advertising to me. Wikipedia should be about the general relevance of the website, rather than about the ways in which the creators of the game make profit out of it, the payment details are not relevant for the general public. I'd suggest to limit this part to saying that there is the possibility to buy virtual furniture, period. It is interesting that this marketing oriented reference is introduced before saying anything about the philosophy of the community (the way of Habbo) this seems to reflect the priorities of an interested part writing the article, i.e: sounds like advertising.Iguazo 13:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Great points. Is this any better? --Dreaded Walrus t c 14:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the proposed change, what matters is to say that virtual goods can be purchased with real money.Iguazo 17:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
How about this? The bit has changed from "The service's other focus point is virtual furniture, which is often called "furni" by players. This can be bought by players using credits via a variety of payment methods, including (but not limited to) SMS, home phone, pre-paid cards, credit card and money order.", to "The service's other focus point is virtual furniture, which is often called "furni" by players. This virtual furniture can be bought by players using credits, which are bought using real-life currency.". Feel free to improve the sentence yourself too, if you want, though it will take a couple of days until your account is old enough to be able to edit it. If you want, you could add the intro to your user page, edit it there to what you think it should be, and then drop us a line here when you feel it is ready. Sound good? :) --Dreaded Walrus t c 17:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
To my mind the first paragraph is better with the changes you introduced, thanks. However when re-reading the article thoroughly and I realize that the same kind of "look at the nice virtual things you can purchase" is all over the article (pets, badges, and so on), and in general, the article seems too focused in the commercial issues of the site (sponsors, credits, trading). One way to make the article more neutral would be to present some of the documented criticism. I could make some suggestions in that respect, for instance, oddly enough since this web was created in Finland, the version of this article in the Finnish wikipedia does include a paragraph warning on the online dangers in this type of community, I could prepare a translation of that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iguazo (talk • contribs).
Please, go ahead. Anything to finally remove that {{advert}} tag ;) Sebi [talk] 21:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Personally I think it's important we add under criticism that a player's status in Habbo Hotel is solely achieved through spending real-life money, as opposed to most other online games, which allow players to earn their status while playing. Peglegpenguin 03:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
That just brings up the argument that players can win competitions to gain noteriety, or 'suck up to the staff'... the list goes on and on. We shouldn't make such rash generalizations. YodaOfDarkness 06:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Current Hotel list

The Current Hotels list is relevant to the article. DanPMK (talk · contribs) has removed the section from the article, because "It fails WP:N", and that there are "No sources", and "no external coverage". How exactly does it fail WP:N? As a matter of fact, there is a source provided, if you had cared to check. That source was broken, as Sulake had updated their site and moved things around, so the new source is here. No external coverage? What exactly do you mean by "no external coverage"?

He also removed the section previously, stating that "The article already states there are 29 hotels, and this is an English wiki". As I have explained on his talk page previously (no reply), this may be an English wiki, but does it mean that we can't feature content on other languages and other information about other cultures?

The list is relevant to the article, because it lists all the Habbo Hotels across the globe; as far as I'm concerned that is of some relevance to the article. There are sources to back up the claims that these Hotels exist and are actual Habbo Hotels. It is relevant, and it has a source; therefore, there is no reason to have it removed from the article. Sebi [talk] 08:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't have much of an opinion on whether it is included or not, but with regards to this edit summary, I should make it clear that notability guidelines apply only to articles themselves, and not to the content of articles. So, while it would be not appropriate to have an entire article dedicated to say, the Finnish Hotel, whether it should be included in this article is unrelated to notability. --Dreaded Walrus t c 08:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
There is already a discussion, actually ;) All good, now. Sebi [talk] 08:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The reason I removed them is because it's bad enough that this article is a giant advertisement. It is stated already that there are 29 hotels; we don't need to link to all of them. In fact, the intro to the article cites the hotel list page as a reference. As for me saying it's an English wiki, you know I didn't mean to exclude it on the grounds you stated. Of course Wikipedia has information on almost ever other culture; it's an encyclopedia. I'm simply saying that, as an English wiki, there is little need to link to 28 non-English language websites when there is an English one available. The article is already long enough.
As for WP:N, I thought that it applied to content; I was mistaken. Nevertheless, I think my above point holds up rather well. What does everyone else think? - MK ( talk/contribs) 07:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay then, what do you suggest we do to the section to make it look less like an advertisement? Sebi [talk] 07:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we should remove the URL columns from the table – any better ideas? –sebi 04:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Article still an advertisement?

Alot of changes have been made since the advert tag has been added – what could be done next? All suggestions welcome. Sebi [talk] 08:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The changes you have made over the past couple of days have been, without exception, excellent. One thing that I feel could be done next, is, the review that is currently commented out, could be included with quotes from the review, and perhaps the same could be done with the other reviews mentioned.
"an in-depth article about Habbo Hotel written by British travel writer Tim Moore was published in the Daily Telegraph's Telegraph Magazine"? That's great, but what conclusions did it make? What were Moore's opinions on Habbo Hotel? He used to write for Digitiser before becoming a travel writer, so he is experienced at writing about games. virtualworldlets.net "gave it a rating of 46.5 / 100"? Well that's a good start, but what were their guiding thoughts behind that score? I've actually read the review in question, back before it was commented out, and there's some valid, citable criticism in that review. There is a bit of scaremongering in the review (such as in the conclusion: "the lack of moderation, coupled with the fact it is intended for children as young as eight, would make this world a haven for those who prey on children, and as such, for your child, it may be best, avoided."), but for a site that specialises in reviewing online worlds, their opinion should perhaps be quoted more than just a review score, which, arguably, is the least important part of a review. --Dreaded Walrus t c 10:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, I too have also seen the article before, however, Daily Telegraph hasn't posted anything about the article on their website (haven't checked recently) and the source that was about the article was some thread on a fansite forum, and it was removed due to "unreliableness". We should also include parts about child prey, etc should definitely be included, but I'm not exactly sure how it should be written. Also, thanks for your comments :) –sebi 07:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Bold vs. bold & italic

I'm slightly confused – the title in the infobox is written in bold and italics, and the opening sentence ("Habbo Hotel is a virtual community [...]") is in bold and italics, but if the opening sentence is in bold and italics, it means that everywhere else in the article where it says "Habbo Hotel", must be in italics. However, this seems slightly awkward... anyone else feel the same way? –sebi 05:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

A quick look at Second Life and Runescape suggest that they use bold and italics, then italics throughout.
Which, like you say, does seem a bit awkward. I don't have any actual preference either way, but that seems to be the style used. --Dreaded Walrus t c 09:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Surprisingly, the phrase "Habbo Hotel" is not used very often, it is mostly just "the Hotel". Anyway, I made the italics change, and it doesn't look that awkward as I thought it would look. The only awkwardness I pick up is the 3rd opening statement, "The original conception of Habbo Hotel, Mobiles Disco [...]", with italicising on both Habbo Hotel and Mobiles Disco, but I guess it doesn't look too awkward. –sebi 07:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Protection removed

Alas, the first IP edit in a while. Protection was recently removed from the article because the reason given: "time". Keep an even closer eye on this article, as the amount of vandalism is sure to increase. –sebi 07:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with the unprotection. It had been protected for... 5 months? Still, we'll just keep an eye on it, and if they start vandalising it again, then it's their loss when it gets protected again. --Dreaded Walrus t c 12:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


Habbo and misuse by children

What a pity, this habbo people are just looking for our children's money, our money. As a father of 2 children, I do know how easy is for them to be registered without parental permission and in their ignorancy buy credits by phone. Despite the habbo's claim that buying is limited to 25 Euros per week, my phone's bill was charged with more than 300 Euros in just one month. That's the crude reality. Please be aware of this.

best regards

That's unfortunate for you. You might try actually monitoring your children's actions on the computer or restricting their access. How is this related to the article? The internet is not a babysitter, just like Wikipedia is not a forum. SpigotMap 15:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It is relevant, as it criticism of the service...which I do believe is so relevant to the article it has it's own section. I agree though, Wikipedia is not a forum...so therefore you shouldn't have put advice for him there as it isn't relevant at all. Unfortunately, though you were suggesting otherwise, for reasons explained above his comments are relvant, yours however are not...as we are not discussing an article for "Critiscm of parents of users of Habbo Hotel", in which they may be. Please try to use Wikipedia correctly in the future, though I'm sure you will after realising your mistake and misuse. - Ryan1711 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.6.16 (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Club Penguin

Do we really need to mention Club Penguin in the "Reviews, awards and criticism" section?

"In Habbo Hotel, a player's status is achieved through real-life currency, as opposed to other massively multiplayer online games such as Club Penguin, where this status is achieved through playing the game." 74.65.42.5 05:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because Club Penguin is a perfect example of an MMOG that player status is achieved through gameplay, rather than a player's status in Habbo Hotel, which is achieved through purchasing credits using real-life money. –sebi 05:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the article is clear enough as it is, without giving the reader more to research. Chugger1992 05:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
And what exactly do you mean by that, Chugger? –sebi 05:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I mean that the article is clear without mentioning Club Penguin. Throwing that in there just gives the reader more to look into. If you ask me, this is just a pointless reference that does nothing but confuse people. Chugger1992 05:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. Don't add it again unless you cite a reliable source that says that. SpigotMap 05:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[restarting indents] You're kidding me. That part is not "promoting another game" at all; it's comparing Habbo Hotel with other MMOGs. I've readded it in again, because it's not something that requires a reliable source. –sebi 05:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You're comparing it to another game, that falls under original research and/or fan speculation unless someone notable said it. Cite it or it needs to go. SpigotMap 06:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I've wrapped it in html comment tags (<!-- -->). I honestly thought it was a good contribution to the article, however, I was wrong. –sebi 22:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
That should do for now. — E talkbots 00:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Bobba filter

Might want to look at removing the line about getting around the bobba filter. That part of the section is unsourced as it is, no use adding something like that to it. SpigotMap 04:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Bobba filter can now be turned off, so people who have the filter off can see swearing, but people with it on see Bobba. Even if the bobba filter is off numbers more than 5 characters long are filtered. MonsterCheese 14:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC) 15:06, 30 August 2007 (GMT/BST)

Needed additions

  • Habbo China closes down.
  • Underage Habbo Canada user lured by online predator, click here (watch video), something needs to be added about how online predators use Habbo to lure children etc.

-- Kai talk 12:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Source, and... the news source, rather than the attached video would be preferable. –sebi 22:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, I believe that some specific mention of the malicious "Pool's Closed" raid on Habbo Hotel by members of the 4chan community should be present in this article. Creationlaw 20:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Raids are mentioned under critisms. 4chan is not mentioned in the source and can not be used. All that can be said has been said in the article. SpigotMap 20:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


wtf raids?

How are there no "verifiable sources" for the epic raids on habbo? There are thousands of screencaps and dozens of video captures from the events, not to mention that everyone knows about it. Those raids are by far the most notable thing that has ever happened to this little game, and it's simply unencyclopedic not to include them. And to disclame, i'm not a anonymous, I'm a long-standing member of wikipedia. My vote is against your consensus decision so chaulk me up on the yeas. --frotht 05:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. YouTube videos aren't reliable sources, and those image screenshots aren't reliable sources either. The only reliable source we found was a FOX video on Internet hackers that only described enough information to put in what it's in the article about the raids right now. I reverted your edit because you did not attach a reliable source. Please have a thorough read of the archives above (most recent archive). Sebi [talk] 05:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:RS, You Tube videos and sources linking to Encylopedia Dramatica (a site, by the way, is dead linked from Wikipedia), are not reliable sources. Seicer (talk) (contribs)
OK, so what if we cite that Fox 11 video? How can we cite it? Also, what about Habbo in-game notices? They once noted during a large raid that it was "Afro Day" in an attempt to assimilate the raiders as part of the game. In addition, there have been articles written by Habbo staff memebers about the problems Habbo moderators face when dealing with the raiders.204.49.209.155 15:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
We've already got that video as citations, but unfortunately, there's not much they say about the actual raids, only a line or two's worth. --Dreaded Walrus t c 15:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
So do you think, if tomorrow goes off as planned, and Fox News or some online reporter takes note of us again, it will work? Being as highly offensive at the 9/11 raid will be, it should garner some media attention. Shall we wait for that article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.49.209.155 (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
If a reliable, reputable source (such as Fox News again) covers it, then by all means, we can add to the short paragraph we currently have on the raids, using it as a source. :) --Dreaded Walrus t c 16:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
There are several reliable sources on raids. I think, there are some HABBO STAFF in wikipedia, using the wiki to advertise their product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lardayn (talk • contribs) 10:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
So far, I am only aware of one reliable source, which we were all too eager to include. If you can point out these other reliable sources that mention raids on Habbo Hotel, I'd be delighted. The article is also a lot less advertisement-like than it was a few months ago, thanks to a lot of users here, and I don't remember any opposition to those changes. --Dreaded Walrus t c 11:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I am with anonymous. We do the raids because of racism shown by the mods. But don't just take my word for it, ask on our "secret" website, 4chan 65.117.141.8 19:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Like that is a reliable source. I see that there are no note-worthy articles, I take it? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's one raid., it's a pretty decent account of what a Something Awful mod did as a member of an unrelated message board. 66.189.177.125 02:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That hardly comes close to a reliable source at all. I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Reliable sources instead of posting links to wikis because they have material relevant to the event. Sebi [talk] 05:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

So what would make a source reliable? Looks like no source is reliable to you no matter what, including actual videos and hundreds of websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.74.129.158 (talk) 04:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Bah, this has nothing whatsoever to do with reliable sources, despite what the official party line says. All of WP knows that if raid details are published on WP there will be Habbo users reverting it at every opportunity. Seemingly writing the truth is less important than preventing drama. Big surprise there. Tell the wikitruth damnit! (a5y 01:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC))
Then find reliable sources for the wikitruth. ;)
This has nothing whatsoever to do with preventing drama, despite what the official raid party line says. If a reliable source is found, then information from that source is added. We currently have a news report (however uninformed) by Fox News, which mentions the raids. We have used this to mention the raids in the article. If, say, a Habbo user were to remove that, they would be reverted for removing notable, sourced information. If lots of different people try removing the information, then the article is semi-protected. As it is now. Drama solved. --Dreaded Walrus t c 02:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Reasonable enough, but there really aren't any other reliable sources that come to mind. It was an internet event; transient, anarchic, and leaving no physical evidence. Screenshots are the only "proof" that exists. What then? Do we omit it? Because it's pretty hard to deny that it happened. EvilStorm 05:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. I have never denied that it happened. Indeed, further up the page I have made it clear that I would be for the raids having a greater mention in the article than they currently do, but unfortunately it is just very hard to find reliable sources on this, outside of the one sliver of a mention in a video, which is already being used. Screenshots exist, sure, but screenshots in themselves aren't reliable sources. Likewise with videos on YouTube or Google Video, for the most part. Neither is Encyclopedia Dramatica, which a5y has inserted in the past, along with an assertion that "THIS SITE IS GOING TO GET RAPED". It just seems that most news outlets don't have much interest in covering these raids, and unfortunately that means we can't really include much mention of it, yet. --Dreaded Walrus t c 02:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Sensible, but a bit of a pity. EvilStorm 15:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm a source. I participate in Habbo Raids....well I only participated in one, only to find out it was totally lame and not fun. Tyler Warren (talk/contribs) 09:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, this is one of those games, like RuneScape, where its actually worth more to just play the private servers. Such as Snappo Motel or Moparscape (RuneScape). People claim private servers are illegal, but they're not, because if they were, hundreds of players would be arrested right now. Tyler Warren (talk/contribs) 09:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HabboHomeAU.png

Image:HabboHomeAU.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 15:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)