Talk:Roblox

Wikipedia is not a strategy guide or instruction manual. Wikipedia articles should focus on the games themselves, not on how to play them; they should not contain tips, tricks, or cheat codes. That information is available elsewhere (such as on our sister project, Wikibooks), in printed guides and online, and does not belong in an encyclopedia entry. Please do not add your own hints or opinions of the game. Verifiable content about the history, design, and overall description of the game is welcome. If you have questions about whether specific information should be added, ask here first.

Seriously.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 19:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Archives

Archive

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by .

Redirection

Wouldn't it make more sense to redirect to ROBLOX, since technically that's it's name. The roblox banner says ROBLOX, not Roblox.

Not from the wikipedia style guidelines. For instance SANYO always capitalise it, the wikipedia article is Sanyo, likewise SONY is Sony etc. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Read WP:NAMING.--gordonrox24 (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources

I've ref'd a couple of points to a primary source (i.e. Roblox itself). Per Wikipedia:RS#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources these need to have some care taken, but given they are referencing straight facts with no analysis or conclusions drawn the risk of original research is limited. If these areas get expanded/changed that status may of course evolve, but I think they will be fine for now. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I prefer secondary sources but they will do for now. Thanks.--gordonrox24 (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed "script" to "program"

Script refers to a script,while program refers to programming. Sounds much better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snateraar (talk • contribs) 19:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scripting is programming. Programming is the correct wording.--gordonrox24 (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turbo Builders Club

Shouldn't someone add a part about that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snateraar (talk • contribs) 19:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your section about that. I can't even find a Primary source talking about it.--gordonrox24 (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Test server. And yes,I should make this article when it's on the real website. Snateraar (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anything on the test server is not 100% certain that it will be moved to the real site. When it is on the real site then you can start writing about it.--gordonrox24 (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main site lists it, so I've incorporated the details. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like using the site as a reference but I guess it is an uncontroversial fact...--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 19:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links

DO we really need so many links at the end of the article? I think the regular site and the Roblox Developers Blog should just be fine. --Briguy9876 (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. One of the links is an old reference, the Wiki is shut down, and the youtube link really isn't needed.--gordonrox24 (talk) 00:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if Blockland gets to put their link on our page, can't we do the same on theirs? --Briguy9876 (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fair. I am sure it will be removed but I think putting it there is the correct thing to do.--gordonrox24 (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting the link to the wiki back as it is up and running again.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 00:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki isn't shut down, it's just locked.

Achive.

Hey, I was just thinking about archiving this talk page. I was thinking everything that was on the userpage should be archived so that the talk page is about this article, not the userpage. Anybody not ok with me doing that?--gordonrox24 (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea.Snateraar (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creators and publishers

We honestly have to have a debate about whether Roblox is developed and managed by Roblox Corporation or by the actual creators (both of which are true). I've seen constant revisions in which the creator's names are changed to Roblox Corporation and back again. --Gert7 (talk) 10:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to quit reverting and go with Roblox Corp. The game is run/created/developed by the staff at Roblox Corp so we might as well leave it as general as possible.-- Gordonrox24 18:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Catalog

It seriously needs what types of things it sells, excluding places. 68.116.98.210 (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are already all listed in the customization section. Look under avatars.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 20:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faces,heads,gear,hats,t-shirts,shirts,pants,models.Snateraar (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Players

There should be a section on famous players like Telamon, Are92, SonicBoy, lemurboy07, Dude195, Are14, and jacbob. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.12.6 (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It'd cause bias and arguments. Trust me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.119.12 (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The idea, yes. -Relorelo84 who is too bored to log into his account —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.98.210 (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is an encyclopedia, not a roblox manual.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 16:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Encyclopedia, yes. It's supposed to contain lots of detail. 68.116.98.210 (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Detail about features of the game, not random non-notable players.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 19:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The game itself has questionable notability. Unless players are being written about in third party publications, they have no business being in the article. Otherwise, you'd get a lot of kids sticking themselves in the article. Enigma^msg 03:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of famous guys,and some people aren't famous while others think they are.Snateraar(RHQ) (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone change B-Land from MMOGAY back to MMORPG. GoldenPickaxe (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Enigma^msg 03:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WOAH, WOAH, WOAH.... WOAH. Bad idea. Wikipedia is supposed to tell about the game, not to tell about famous players and whatnot. You have to find that out on your own!

This is not happening.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 18:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible, terrible idea. Listen to Gordon, he actually knows what he's talking about. 1. Fame is unquantifiable. 2. It's not notable. 3. It's very subjective. 4. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia - do you see famous WoW players or Eve Online players on their pages? Not unless they become notable in the real world aka Leeroy Jenkins. - clockwork Awsum11 (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know why people decided...

A full scale vandalism attack on the freaking ROBLOX page? Were we just a random attack victim? Anyone have any ideas?

--ANormalUsername1 (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is always subject to Vandalism. That is why we have features like WP:TWINKLE and WP:ROLLBACK. About 1 thousand of my almost three thousand edits are vandalism reverts.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 22:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page has always been a vandal target, but today it was likely the target of a coordinated attack. I semiprotected and cleansed the page. Enigma^msg 22:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm seriously hoping that I can count on you guys to revert when you see vandalism. --ANormalUsername1 (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's my job =)--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 22:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I wanna edit pages for Roblox to add Turbo BC to it.The Blockland part needs to be taken away. Telamon won't be too happy. Mokbi128 (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Mokbi128[reply]

It already covers the Turbo Builders club. Why would we remove a reference to blockland being of a similar ilk? And who are Telamon such that it would effect what wikipedia covers? --82.7.40.7 (talk)

16:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Roblox staff have no remit here. No more then you or me.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 17:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please Read!

First, I'm Paulwe, you may have heard of me, I have yet to get a Wikipedia account, but I'm on ROBLOX. Telamon WON'T like this. At all. Nada. Zip. Zero. Why? It doesn't say ANYTHING about mods. Oh and the H & D section is very skimpy. Really like the article though. (Builderman must be having a house party =) ) 24.207.71.168 (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt matter if Telamon completly despises it or not. There are a lot of rules on Wikipedia to abide by, so we do. Mods = Not relevent, not enough 3rd party sources on H&D, and..what? --Briguy9876 (talk) 04:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are getting at, Telamon is very happy with himself and his article.(My point being that roblox admins have no remit on Wikipedia). The mod issue is going to get the same response as the Famous people issue. We are not going to be adding a section to the article to describe non-notable 15 year olds(Sorry brig ;P).--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 14:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2005 IS THE DATE

I could have sworn its 2005. builderman says and its in his help page and about us page at the bottom of every roblox page 96.242.132.70 (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC) (JEREMJAY24)[reply]