Talk:Habbo

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.

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)

New Release?

Should we include a section about the new release? This meaning the new homepage, clothes, etc.

Pancakeparty (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to add a new section about these updates. JoshHuzzuh  Talk  22:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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.