Talk:The Da Vinci Code WebQuests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 11 May 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Thanks Charlie for the solution of putting the webquests on their own page. :)

This article was placed here as a resolution to the ongoing vandalism on another article. Please refer this message from Charlie - it seems to be the best solution, as previous solutions (that were discussed and agreed upon) were once again recently deleted by an overzealous member who did not bother to read the discussion first, and then apparently got angry when another user tried to restore what had been deleted as per earlier discussions, which in turn led to the overzealous member locking the article yet again, which initiated another speight of vandalism across a number of articles. The discussion is there for a reason, and what had become am ugly situation had been resolved, only to have the overzealous member start it up again. Not very intelligent.

Summation here which may be a good place to respond..69.3.199.103 20:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Trimmed excess external links as according to the deletions page this article has too many of them (?). Added appropriate categories.
Yet another new webquest has just been released by Eurostar.. it's starting to make sense to have a separate article for Da Vinci webquests, and then the two articles - one for the book and one for the movie(s). 64.105.73.85 17:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Someone moved external links to bottom (no explanation), but in doing so they deleted several links and added a couple of others.. strangely enough, Gogglefact's websites (3 of them - one of which is just a mirror) just happened to be the first three listed at the top. Gee I wonder why. Have added back the links again as it seems nobody can agree which should stay and which shouldn't, so the fairest thing is to list them all (but not mirror sites), and then broke them down to the appropriate quests and in the order they were originally added to Wikipedia. Can't be fairer than that. 64.105.73.85 20:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
So...you've been talking to yourself this whole time...? And, if you had bothered to read the edit summary on the page history, you would have noticed that I provided a perfectly good explanation. There are no mirrors either. I told the owner of Googlefact to create a new site or section of a site that wouldn’t confuse readers. For example, student-rant.blogspot.com really is a student’s rant, and hasn’t always been (nor, most likely, will it always be) for the Da Vinci Code WebQuests. Then, readers clicking on external links will claim that we’ve given way to ads and allowed random links to be inserted into the links section. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 21:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I've been writing here so there is a record of what I have been doing and the reasons for it. Just so you know, your friend who happens to be the author of the sites you seem to be blindly promoting so hard above everyone else's is not as innocent as you claim. Had you seen his comments on another site you would realise this. He certainly has found it amusing having you wrapped around his finger, and his motive was simple - ad-impression revenue. Now I'll make your day: I've had enough, you can have it all your own way - if Wikipedia is run by nazis it's not worth my time and effort. Enjoy your little world here controlling everything you can. Suggestion: get a life. Bye. (Anonymous comment added 20:37, May 14, 2006 by 64.105.73.85)
Just a note of advice, please do not take the comments of one editor, as if they are the spokesperson for the entire Wikipedia community.  ;) I do recommend, however, that when adding comments to a talk page, that everyone endeavors to "sign" their comments with four tildes: ~~~~. This automatically adds a signature and datestamp, which makes conversations a bit easier to follow. Thanks.  :) -- Elonka 21:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
It would also be good to register an account if you haven't done so already. You know, just in case ;) Gen 22:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Even with the revisions, there are still far too many external links. Half the page length is devoted to external links, when the actual article itself is at most 500 words long. Remember, Wikipedia is not a repository of links. --Madchester 16:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Google webquest no longer available online & other changes

The Google Webquest is no longer available online - if you go to the site and choose a country, the resulting message is: "We're sorry, but The Da Vinci Code Quest on Google has ended. The Da Vinci Code is in theaters worldwide May 19th." I have amended the Google webquest article accordingly. As far as external links go, the tildemark link under Solutions to the original 2003 webquests seems to be a general Da Vinci Code site now, rather than an article dedicated purely to the original webquests, so perhaps that external link should be removed to help trim things a little, as suggested by Madchester above. Likewise with the link that more recently turned up at the top of the list of external links regarding Kryptos - that link already features on the Wikipedia Kryptos page (as it should) but I don't really think it belongs here, in view of the fact that the site (which I checked out) is, in fact, about the Kryptos sculpture, not the Da Vinci Code webquests, and the external links here are too numerous already, as mentioned. As the Google webquest is no longer available online, I suggest all Google webquest solutions sites also be removed from external links as they serve no purpose - no point having answers to questions that don't exist, right? The Euroquest is still current. I have not made these changes to external links as yet - I'm aware of the past issues with this topic and don't wish to start a war - so I'm looking for consensus here.. demonsurfer 15:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


Amended external links as proposed above - waited a week an no objections, so done. demonsurfer 03:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WebQuests

I believe the term WebQuest, as used in this article, is a misnomer. WebQuest is actually a specific technical term in the field of education, and doesn't mean "A Quest on the Web". It implies a certain level of pedagogical care which these games to not seem to have. Additionally, the games themselves do not seem to actually call themselves "WebQuests." I propose that either the wording be changed to avoid confusion, or a section be added to distinguish between the technical and the colloquial usage.Alex Dodge 02:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

In favor of changing the wording, in a Google search for "WebQuest" [1] the first four pages are all educational webquests. With the Da Vinci Code Web Quest (note the space) on the fourth page, then another swath of WebQuests in the pedagogical sense. Alex Dodge 02:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)