Talk:Killer List of Videogames
|WikiProject Video games||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
I don't think this is the right term. I think its Arcade games because all the games listed are arcade games and they definitely don't compare with the list provided by most websites and reputable magazines such as Electronic Gaming Monthly. Last I recall, Metroid and Zelda and Metal Gear Solid was on EGM's list. Hmmm Lame list with old timers games.
Sean, August 10, 2004
- True, true, but we didn't name the website. This article is about their website, not about what they should've named it. From the article:
- Though it has "videogame" in its name, the title is a bit of a misnomer. The KLOV only lists arcade machines. The site of Moby Games, however, does catalog video and computer games.
But I could swear it covered ports too, when you search for ninja turtles, you find both the original and sequel arcade games, and their ports to NES and Genesis/SNES respectively --188.8.131.52
- I'm not sure what you're referring to. Do you mean the KLOV or MobyGames? I searched on the KLOV for "ninja turtles" and only came up with all the arcade games and its sequels. The list didn't show any console games. MobyGames, however, would have all the console ports. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:36, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
"Videogames" is evil
Am I the only one bugged by them spelling video games as one word? It's just so annoying. I wish I could move this article but the site it's based on spells it incorrectly as well. TJ Spyke 06:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Since the website spells it this way, it doesn't really bother me. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Videogames vs. video games is a long debate, and has been discussed both on the KLOV message forums and throughout the web itself. There isn't a perfect answer, though 'videogame' as one word seems to be gaining traction. See the web page for the published book, The Videogame Style Guide, at http://www.gamestyleguide.com/ Mclemore (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I made a couple of changes here. In the history section, there were some passages that sounded like a PR-text. I kicked them out and left only the parts that actually stated facts. On the other hand, I removed the portion in the introduction where it says the site name is a misnomer. Just stating that it has videogames in the title but lists only arcade games is enough and more NPOV. Finally I removed the external links section. Since the whole article is about the site, it is already linked in the top right box, and a seperate link to the top 100 doesn't make a lot of sense. --184.108.40.206 19:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Most of the history section is incredibly negative; it sounds like the author was dismissed or at leat not given the desired attention by regulars on the site and is trying to make the owners of the site seem incompetent. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing it. It says nothing about fraud or dusty web pages or bad karma, quite even handed, by my lights. - Denimadept (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
There were a *lot* of negative and factually incorrect comments posted primarily by a single anonymous user at a single IP address back in 2008 which were removed today. From the text written, i suspect it is a known specific person (or one of his friends) who wanted to take over the KLOV back in 2000 and was denied. This morning I received a complaint from someone that had noticed the errors and tone, had tried to fix them, and had seen their edits reverse. I then logged on and fixed the worst of it myself. Disclaimer: I'm in a position to both know the facts and to have opinions, as I've administered the KLOV for almost a decade. I'm working to keep my edits factually neutral. To backup the accuracy of the edits, I'm about to post some additional facts, including some early KLOV history back to the 1980s which I've just spent the last two hours collecting. So if there are any errors in my edits I hope they are only in the length of additions.Mclemore (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps I didn't see it because I contributed to the KLOV before it was taken over. I've seen. - Denimadept (talk) 01:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Comments wrt expansion
- This page isn't for advertising your companies.
- How much of this is cited? How much can be?
- There's waaaay more detail than is appropriate. Right now, the "history" section is a list. It should be redone as prose.
- Some of what you have to say seems to be first-person. nonono. - Denimadept (talk) 01:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- None of it was intended to be 'advertising'. The content before was full of factual errors so it was an intent to fix all that.
- I am happy to add citations when possible. Some of it can be. Dates via whois records, names from 1991-1993 from old usenet postings, etc.
- I'll relook at it. If you mean the bolded years when you say list they can be removed but I thought it adds clarity.
- First-person? That wasn't my intent. I'll reread and fix as necessary. Actually, I see you just fixed some of it yourself. Ok. Mclemore (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)