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 of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Template:WP1.0 Template:WP MMOG

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Video games B‑class

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

B

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

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Featured content candidates

Good article nominations

Donkey Kong (start)
Puff-puff (onomatopoeia) (start)
Hyper Duel (start)
Gengar (nom)
Leifang (start)
Megamania (start)
Barry Burton (start)
Tina Armstrong (start)
Birdo (nom)
Shin Megami Tensei V (start)
Iron Soldier (nom)
Alex Thach (nom)
Justin Yu (start)
Theatrhythm Final Fantasy: Curtain Call (nom)
Kim Kitsuragi (start)
Miner 2049er (start)
Pokémon Sword and Shield (start)
Portal Stories: Mel (nom)
Pixel Piracy (start)
Ether One (start)
Yoshi's New Island (nom)
Dr Disrespect (start)
Pokémon Sword and Shield Expansion Pass (start)
Portal Revolution (nom)
Async Corp. (start)

DYK nominations

No did you know nominations

Reviews and reassessments

Articles that need...

Template:TrollWarning

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 8, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
January 20, 2007	Articles for deletion	Speedily kept
May 19, 2007	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
June 1, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

yes]

view · edit

FAQ

Q: Should I be putting information into the article that only Habbo users would be interested in?

A: No. No matter the number of users or the amount of users that actually visit this article, this is still an encyclopedia, not a user guide.

Q: May I put my opinion into the article?

A: No. As this is an encyclopedia, everything is to be written in a neutral point of view and thus do not push your opinion.

Q: Should I add lists of Moderators, Furniture or Habbo Xs?

A: No. Put yourself in the article reader's position. You wouldn't need to know everything.

Q: Should I refer to people who use Habbo as "Habbos", "Players" or "Users".

A: Users. You should refer to people who use Habbo as Users as they are using a service.

citations.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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