Talk:GameFAQs

Archives
GameFAQs
February 2004 – April 2006 April 2006 – June 2007
GameFAQs message boards
January 2005 – March 2006 March 2006 – September 2006

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)

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)

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))

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)

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-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)

Congratulations, Wikipedia!

The usefulness and quality of featured articles on the site can only go up from here.71.56.155.117 00:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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)