Talk:Desktop Tower Defense

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Video games (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
Start-Class article 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.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indie task force.


This whole article sounds like an attempt to sell the game to the reader. I couldn't make it to the bottom of the (short) page. It made me gag. Slapntickle 16:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well if you couldn't be bothered to read the whole article your opinion lacks any authority whatsoever ( (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC))

It is a free game. Ion Zone (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


Can the page be unprotected? I'm willing to write a neutral, unbiased and well-referenced article about the game. (which by now has reached a particular level of notability) that the Wall Street Journal has an article about the game. [1] Shrumster 07:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Moved the article into articlespace! Shrumster 06:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


Hey guys i have a blog all about desktop tower defense, with tips, tricks, mazes and strategies to help newbies, can someone please add my blog in the text for people to learn more about the game, it took me a lot of time to write it all down on piece of paper and then uploading it on net.. thx

What's the URL? Normally, game guides are not linked to in WP but let's see what your site has. Shrumster 05:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey thx, here is the url, i play the game a lot myself and i am looking forward to add new stuff every day or so..

Hey Shrumster so what you think mate?

Recreated Article[edit]

Recreated the article as an unbiased, neutral and sourced article unrelated to the old one. I hope this new one addresses the concerns raised at the previous AfD. Shrumster 06:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

To be integrated later into text as references/reviews. [2], [3] and [4]. Shrumster 08:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You never replied back Shrumster —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)

Regarding? Shrumster 16:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

dark creeps[edit]

What makes dark creeps special as far as i can tell they just pay well? Maybe there should be a section on creep types.

Good point. I'll try to elaborate on the creep types but I'm avoiding this turning into a game guide so the section should be detailed enough to say how the creeps are different but not enough that actual statistics and values are stated. AFAIK, dark creeps are extremely slow but any shot doing less than a particular amount of damage bounces off harmlessly off them. Shrumster 08:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually the immune only reflects blizzard/frost, not the stun of Bashes as of 1.5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

i think they have an ability to reflect certain shots —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Dark creeps don't sustain damage except from highly-upgraded towers. The dark creeps are barely knicked by a level-3 squirt tower; you can overcome a line of them with a level-4 squirt tower; and you can quickly blow them away with a typhoon tower. As for the gameguide stuff, I think it's sometimes a blurry line; we have a lot of gameguide-ish stuff on popular games such as Monopoly and basically it's just a matter of what the community will tolerate. There's some bias against thorough coverage of this type of game, relative to, for instance, a well-known board game. That's just the nature of how Wikipedia is governed. Simultaneous movement (talk) 04:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Reception and impact[edit]

We have to draw a threshold for inclusion of mentions at some point. The webcomic "Sunday at Ten" has been determined to be non-notable at AFD. As an AFD comment stated, it's a random web comic – the equivalent of a self-published source, and as such such it's not reliable or sufficiently notable source to demonstrate this game's popularity or recognition popular culture. --Muchness 21:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Have it your way. Shrumster 21:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Blogs as sources[edit]

A number of sources being used are blogs. Unless the individual who wrote the blog happens to be a verifiable expert in the field of online flash games, and published previously by a third party as such, this is a problem. While there are several useable citations there, the ones which are not are going to have to be trimmed as well as the text they support.--Crossmr 12:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Which ones specifically? Shrumster 13:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
[5], [6], [7] (this one isn't even necessary to support the text its attached to), [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] (tech crunch might have some notability, but who is this person and is there any editorial oversight? It appears not as he's taken his information from another self-published blog), [13], [14]. The question comes down to: Do any of these have editorial oversight? If not, who are these people? Why do we care about their opinion and what they've written? Anyone can go out, fire up a blog and add whatever they want to it. Which is the problem.--Crossmr 22:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, 5, 6 & 7 are only used as sources for the exact dates of the upgrades so there's little volatile information that can be misconstrued from them. Note that the author of 6 is notable enough to survive an AFD and is an accepted professional blogger. As for the others, they're all technology-oriented reviews and are used as sources for their review-value (and not for factual information which is the primary concern of WP:V/RS). To cite a specific example, Yuga is one of the #1 bloggers in his country (and probably should have a WP article himself). Shrumster 23:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
He might be a notable blogger, that doesn't make him an expert in the field of online games who's been published by a third party. See WP:V#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29. Whether they're used for fact or opinion that doesn't give them a pass. I can go whip up a blog review on any subject, it doesn't mean it should be cited in a wikipedia article. Unless the blog can be demonstrated to possess editorial oversight (some newspapers for example have a blog section but those blogs receive the same editorial oversight as a regular column) or the writer can be shown to be meet the criteria above, it can't be used as a source, for fact or opinion (especially opinion).--Crossmr 23:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
What makes an "expert" in the field of online games then? Shrumster 05:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
They not only have to be an expert, they have to be published as such by a reliable third party. There would have to be some indication that a reliable source views this person as an expert in the field and he's been published as such. If a newspaper were to constantly cite this person and his opinion it would give you an idea that his opinion is notable and valuable. If he's been cited in books, papers, articles or otherwise (and preferably more than once or twice) then it would establish them as an expert. Were there then evidence that they've been published as such (notable publishing firm, newspaper runs a regular column from them, notable TV show has them in regularly, etc) then you can use their self-published material. If there is nothing tangible that someone can really check and verify against to indicate that blogger X really is an expert and his opinion should have weight, it doesn't make him any different from Joe Blogger and anyone can go out and create all kinds of sources to support pretty much anything they want in an article.--Crossmr 19:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
"anyone can go out and create all kinds of sources to support pretty much anything they want in an article" but that's not what happened here now, isn't it? You have to be flexible when dealing with articles on topics that obviously aren't conventional and mainstream. For example, can you actually give me an expert on "online flash games"? I doubt that by your standards, any actually exist because that's simply too specific. The subject of the article is not just an "online flash game". It is a game. It is an online resource. It is a flash game. It is an online game. It is a web application. As such, you should be looking for "experts" on those particular fields and not simply "online flash games". That would be like discounting the work of a herpetologist who says something about the pygmy Madagascar cave frog on the grounds that "he is an expert on frogs, but not on the pygmy Madagascar cave frog." Anyway, if you're still not convinced, I say WP:IAR since the sources are not controversial, they're independent of the subject, "no free alternative exists" (using the argument for fair use as a humorous analog), and the information gleaned from them simply enhance the article (and do not jeopardize its quality in any way). BTW, some of the sources do pass your strict specifications, such as the techcrunch ones. Shrumster 20:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
No you really don't. If you're beginning to put forth the theory that you can't find proper reliable sources for this because its not conventional and mainstream you're calling its notability in to question. We don't give a subject a pass because its really cool and in the internet so regular sources aren't available. Those aren't my standards they're the communities standards, and no its unlikely there isn't a recognized expert on flash games, which is why none of these blogs are usable as sources. Desktop Tower Defense is a popular Flash-based browser game of the tower defense genre Sounds to me thats what its about. As such any self-published source would have to be an expert in this or a very related field (flash in general, online games in general, very loosely web apps, but thats pushing it), either way you haven't demonstrated that any of the authors of the self-published material are recognized and published experts in the field of Games, online games, online resources, web applications, etc... if you need to invoke IAR, you're using it wrong. Because I can simply invoke it as well and remove it all. IAR gets you no where and doesn't win you any debates. The sources have been challenged and if you'd like to keep them in the article then you need to demonstrate that they meet the policy in WP:V for self-published online sources. If any of them do, feel free to demonstrate as such and they can be left alone.--Crossmr 21:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Just a comment. It's true that most blogs are unreliable, but don't say that because none of these blogs are experts in online flash games that they're unusable as sources. In particular, TechCrunch, Kottke, and GigaOM are well-established blogs that are deemed experts in particular areas of web properties. Some of the others can be removed but not all blogs, but popular blogs that talk about websites and web companies and web services and have been cited in mainstream media to be knowledgeable/competent about those deserve to be cited for Desktop Tower Defense. The frog analogy is apt. There is unlikely that there is a widely cited expert on a particular species of frog so a simple frog-expert is acceptable or even just a general zoologist. --seav 02:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
just because "a" blog has been cited in the main-stream media doesn't make "this" blog reliable. That was my point above. If an author or their blog have been cited in main stream media as an expert on a subject (preferably repeatedly) then yes, they can be used as a citation. But just because blog X has been, or X, Y, and Z have been, doesn't mean blog A is automatically a reliable source. Blogs are self-published and until it establishes that level of credibility its no different than any other blog out there.--Crossmr 03:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I personally don't think that we should enforce strict reliability/credibility criterion on every article. It's true that we shouldn't cite zoology blogs in zoology articles (unless the blog author is an established zoologist widely recognized in the field), but I see no problem citing established blogs (that report on things on the web: TechCrunch, etc.) about web games. The bigger problem are unsourced statements in Wikipedia. But here, in this particular case, they're sourced and the reader can make judgement for him/herself whether that's useful information or not. --seav 02:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV apply to all articles, not just the ones which have a chance of being edited according to those rules. If an article can't be met to conform to those policies its a clear indication it shouldn't be here. The bigger problem are unsourced statements in Wikipedia a poor citation is no better than no citation. I can go out and whip up a blog to say whatever I want to support. That doesn't make the statement I want to add any better or more reliable. Most of these blogs are not usable as citation, so no, they're not sourced.--Crossmr 06:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
You see, here's the deal. Where I come from, whenever a niche-topic such as a paper about a particularly obscure species of frog gets published in a non-herp (or even a non-zoological-specialist) journal, that makes that species a tad more notable than others. Why? Because a generalist journal (the big ISI ones, let's say Science or Nature) saw it fit to publish something on that particular topic considering that its scope is much wider than just let's say the reproductive biology of a particular species of frog. Now some of the sources you're nitpicking are generally-respected tech-blogs. They saw it fit to publish an article (in many of the cases, NOT a review, but an actual article) about a particular online flash game. If you search those sites, you won't find that many articles on games - so it seems like this particular one "stands out", huh? Hmm...sounds like notability to me. Thing is, many of these don't even review the game as a game -their articles on it are slanted towards the value of the game as an online culture phenomenon (and not just as a simple flash game). Ah, online culture...which happens to be the specialty of many of these sites. I doubt you can willingly say that these sites are not specialists in online culture. And before you even point it out, yes the game does fall under the category (and not simply adjacent). To argue otherwise...will clearly show that you have a darker, more sinister agenda for the article at hand. And now a couple of select responses: "If you're beginning to put forth the theory that you can't find proper reliable sources for this because its not conventional and mainstream you're calling its notability in to question." Ha! I had a feeling this would come up. Your kind never ceases to amaze me. Next thing you know, you'll be calling the New York Times source "unreliable" because it's not an "expert on online flash games." "IAR gets you no where and doesn't win you any debates." You see, that's the problem. While you seem to be here on WP to "win debates", I'm here to make it better by adding content. So feel free to challenge sources all you want, I think I'm going to focus my WP energies on making content instead of nitpicking and deleting it. Cheers! ;) Shrumster 06:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
While the game might have been notable to that blog, that doesn't establish the notability and credibility of the blog itself. You're very clearly confusing the two. Improving an article doesn't just mean adding material to endlessly. If we did that, articles would balloon to unmanageable sizes. Improving articles also involves removing content which shouldn't be there. Things like improperly sourced statements. Your kind never ceases to amaze me read WP:NPA before your next response. Next thing you know, you'll be calling the New York Times source "unreliable" because it's not an "expert on online flash games The New York Times is not a self-published source, there is no requirement for it to be an expert in the field. I've asked you to provide evidence that these sources meet the requirements laid out in the policies and you've failed to do. Plenty of reasonable time has been afforded for that. The policy also requires that since you want to keep the material you're required to provide that evidence. --Crossmr 06:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Tower Defense[edit]

Tower Defense redirects here. Shouldn't it redirect to an article on the genre itself rather than just one of the particular games? It's as though First Person Shooter redirected to the Halo 3 page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I Agree. It's not the best configuration to ensure ease of use, and could be construed as non-neutrality on the part of wikipedia. This should be fixed. -- (talk) 03:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree here too. Needs to be done soon... we need some references for the Tower Defense genre as a whole... (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The article was previously deleted because proper sources couldn't be found. Its currently only redirected because someone felt the need to recreate it without proper sourcing.--Crossmr (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the redirect needs to be fixed. It is completely inappropriate. Aetherealize (talk) 07:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

External links[edit]

There's been some cleanup on the external links section today, most of which was good, but some of which I disagreed with. I think this article should keep the HandDrawnGames link, because that's where the game really took off, and the Casual Collective link, because that's where development on the game is being carried forward by the original authors.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There isn't a need for both a link to both sites. One will do. If the HandDrawnGames site is where the game did gain its popularity, that fact (with citaation) can be added to the article body. However, I don't see how the inclusion of that link adds to the readers understanding of the content. A link to the Casual Collective would be the most appropriate as it represents the official site. -- Whpq (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll buy that. Here's a cite: --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
After reading the article you cited, I've changed my mind. It would be worthwhile to mention in the body of the article in the History>Development section that the original game came was from HandDrawnGames, the site of the developer of the game citing the WSJ article. I'd then structure the external links section something like this:
* [ Official site of original version]
* [ Official site of pro version]
That would seem to make the most sense. Thanks for the WSJ link. -- Whpq (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
My pleasure. Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, wait a sec. You guys had a disagreement ... and settled it in an intelligent, adult manner! Is that allowed on wikipeida? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry. I'll make sure it doesn't happen again, buttmunch. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Err, no, what? WP:EL says that external links should be to unique resources. The Pro version is available in the same Flash applet as the Original version, so we need link only one. I'm not sure what sense of completeness if being striven for here, but we're under no obligation to direct traffic to X site because it happened to host said applet first, or "officially" or whatever. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not just that that site hosted the applet. Basically, its only purpose was to host that applet -- HandDrawnGames was Desktop Tower Defense when it started out. Since that's where it was when it became notable, we should link it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Again, where is that in our guidelines? We don't link to sites just because we feel like giving them credit. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I was of the same opinion as you when I made my original edit that removed all but one link The WP:EL guidelines outlines that official sites are acceptable. This is an odd case where there are in fact two official sites. That is why I changed my mind. And that is why I believe that providing the additional historical information and them providing the two external links makes sense and meets guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 11:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
That's based on the assumption that home pages provide unique additional material. In this case, the only unique material provided on the "home pages" in question are high score tables and banner ads. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Desktop Tower Defense. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)