Talk:GameCrush: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:54, 7 May 2010

Video games Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Jackpot World (1 participant)
Bejeweled Stars (5 participants)
Melee (game terminology) (3 participants)
Solo leveling: Unlimited (4 participants; relisted)
Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Godzilla: Monster of Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Araya (video game) (3 participants; relisted)
Crazy Bus (12 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Reference format

This article now uses list-defined references. This means that the details and metadata of all reference citations are collected in the references section, and each is identified by a reference name. Within the body of the article, citations are made with markup such as <ref name="fwhy" />. This format means that the details of the citation meta data do not clog the body of the article when editing. It also encourages proper reuse of citations.

Please retain this format when adding reference citations to this article, unless a consensus to change it is developed on this page. Thank you. DES ^(talk) 16:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, currently, all references are cited using citation templates. DES ^(talk) 16:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference volume

"but the website claims that it hopes to support other plaforms, such as the PlayStation 3, and the PC, with the popular MMORPG, World of Warcraft.[2][1][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]"

Holy footnote deluge, Batman! Is this sort of huge wall of citations needed to justify one quote? Is this part of a strategy to bolster the no-deletion argument? I don't recall off the top of my head, but I read a WP policy recently that said something about "reference bombing". I don't see how this contributes to the strength of the article.

Also, the number of quoted quotes, while taken from reliable sources, is such that THIS article now seems to be a regurgitation of the press release/reviews. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the main point of the article, as I see it, is the reaction to the proposed business model, I felt it desirable to quote multiple sources to get as wide a variety of reactions as possible. In each case I included only a short part, usually a concluding thought, from the review or story. None are from the press release, nor do they mirror it -- indeed the majority are critical of the service, although not all are. Those references are not to verify a quote, but to verify the facts stated in the paragraph which they footnote. Most of the stories cited for their reactions also confirm the basic facts and are thus cited for that purpose as well. But if good-faith editors thing that fewer citations at that point are desirable they can edit to remove some, or discuss the matter on this talk page to come to a consensus on how many should stay, and which ones. If you seriously want to improve the article, as opposed to just deleting it, feel free to edit.

Since "multiple non-trivial sources" is an important part of demonstrating notability, they do IMO bolster the case against deletion, but you or others may not think so. But they also, IMO help demonstrate who widely this site was noticed and the range of reactions to it, which IMO is a significant part of the article. DES ^(talk) 13:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the site is back up

It went back online a couple days ago.--ILoveSky (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 :Since the main point of the article, as I see it, is the reaction to the proposed business model, I felt it desirable to quote multiple sources to get as wide a variety of reactions as possible. In each case I included only a short part, usually a concluding thought, from the review or story. None are from the press release, nor do they mirror it -- indeed the majority are critical of the service, although not all are. Those references are not to verify a quote, but to verify the facts stated in the paragraph which they footnote. Most of the stories cited for their reactions also confirm the basic facts and are thus cited for that purpose as well. But if good-faith editors thing that fewer citations at that point are desirable they can edit to remove some, or discuss the matter on this talk page to come to a consensus on how many should stay, and which ones. If you seriously want to improve the article, as opposed to just deleting it, feel free to edit.
 :Since "multiple non-trivial sources" is an important part of demonstrating notability, they do IMO bolster the case against deletion, but you or others may not think so. But they also, IMO help demonstrate who widely this site was noticed and the range of reactions to it, which IMO is a significant part of the article. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 13:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
+== the site is back up ==
+It went back online a couple days ago.--[[User:ILoveSky|ILoveSky]] ([[User talk:ILoveSky|talk]]) 15:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)