From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article GameFAQs is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 5, 2007.

slang on gamefaqs[edit]

i just want to know what is trolling flame shields and bump mean —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

When a post is made for no purpose other than to move a topic back to the front of a forum, it is called a "bump." Most people simply type bump when bumping a topic. Trolling is when posts are made simply to annoy people or elicit an emotional response. Flame Shields are "used" to "protect" the poster of controversial material from flaming (hostile or insulting response). Typical use would be "Such and such a game isn't worth playing; the battle system is boring and repetitive *holds up flame shield*" Baron von HoopleDoople (talk) 10:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of LUE section[edit]

Before we go any further, let it be known that I am a regular user on GameFAQs. Now, to the issue. I believe the section on LUE is fancruft. Knowing that a particular board on GameFAQs no longer accepts users is completely irrelevant to anyone who doesn't use the site. Reading the article as if I know nothing about GameFAQs, the only thing I understand about LUE is that it is a board on GameFAQs that originated a particular form of ASCII and that users can no longer access it. Back to the subject, LUEshi is no longer banned (which is why it was famous in the first place), the board number is no longer 42 (making the Hitchhiker reference obsolete), and the "popular fads and events" are only relevant to people who use LUE. In closing, the section seems like a crufty addition of a non-notable forum on GameFAQs that was somewhat famous many years ago but is now no different than any other board on the site. The fact that the ArCEn was denied inclusion despite having several news agencies pick up the story, but a section on LUE remains with no important content, shows that this section has to go. ShadowUltra (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to add my solution. I suggest that a mentioning of LUE, and the fact it no longer accepts users, would be appropriate for the main forum section, but it in no way deserves an entire section to itself. ShadowUltra (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Interesting, apparently this has been brought up before but the discussion died out. ShadowUltra (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Ultra. I, too, am an active Gamefaqs member and I think this section is useless as it is. Comparitively speaking, LUEshi is non-notable and not at all worth mentioning on its own. As you said, all that the paragraph says is that LUE could once be accessed by anyone but now is private. I suppose that your suggestion of a brief mention in the main section is reasonable. I'd also agree that ArCEn is more notable and more interesting, if only because of the publicity. Czar Baldy Bald IV (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of LUElinks[edit]

I think it is perhaps time to remove mention of LUElinks from this article. Using primary sources for it isn't a good idea, and it has certainly been a point of contention for quite a while. I formerly supported its inclusion, but I've changed my mind. --- RockMFR 18:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, YOU think its time to remove it. But how about others? How about actually discussing here and coming to a consensus before prematurely removing it with no other opinions? --TorsodogTalk 17:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of the content in the spinoff section is original research:

  • Due to the high popularity of the GameFAQs boards, many users have created spin-off forums based on the layout and general functionality of the GameFAQs boards - There is no souce for this. Who says it is due to the high popularity? Where is "many users" cited"? Who calls them "spin-off forums"? Who says they are based on GameFAQs?
  • The first spin-off forum was the open source "". - The interview doesn't say this. The interview has CJayC calling it an "offshoot" of the boards, but doesn't say it was open source or that it was the first spin-off. I don't think there is any reliable source that is in the position to identify what the first spin-off was.
  • Another spin-off is "LUElinks" (now "End of the Internet"), a site originally created for members of LUE. - No sources identify it as a spin-off. The source, LUElinks itself, says "In order to register for LUElinks, you must have a GameFAQs account with an active message in LUE." Per WP:SPS, we should not even being using this source in this article.
  • Unlike GameFAQs, it is not open to the public. - No source, and this isn't even true.

The section has been allowed to stand for a long time because the sourcing was mostly ignored. We shouldn't even be discussing whether spinoffs should be talked about or whether they are notable enough if the sources are rubbish. --- RockMFR 17:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well then maybe there is a way to rectify the sourcing problems instead of simply deleting the section? LUElinks is notable, and its redirect page looks to get about 500 hits a month on average. It would be better to try to salvage the section instead of simply deleting it outright. --TorsodogTalk 21:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Highly unlikely. I've looked - there are pretty much no sources. --- RockMFR 03:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I see you've removed it again despite my opposition. Personally, I don't see how primary sources for these few statements are very problematic. Either way, I don't really care what happens to this article, but not mentioning LUELinks at all in either article, even once, seems very silly. It at the VERY least deserves MENTION in this article. It is a prominent spin-off website. Period. --TorsodogTalk 14:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the section as it is clear there is sourcing problems. Torsodog, the problem is that there is nothing in the content which shows why it is important enough to be included in the article. For example a third-party source covering it.--Lorson (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Was this one of the first web 2.0 websites?[edit]

Having a website focused on providing user generated and reviewed content (im talking about the FAQs, not the message boards of course) as early as 1995 is pretty early. Should there be a section noting this? (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No, unless a (perhaps several) reputable, third-party source has declared it one of the first Web 2.0 sites. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

New content[edit]

Article is looking a bit dated and dry.

Formatted FAQs[edit]

Already added this sentence:

From December 2009, formatted guides which allow authors to use basic HTML mark-up in the document were being accepted.

Church burned down by GameFAQs user[edit]

A user burned down a church then posted the pictures on the gamefaqs message boards.

Vice-president of CBS gaming sites[edit]

"Simon Whitcombe as vice president of its Games group, where he'll oversee the company's strategies for GameSpot, GameFAQS, and GameRankings". Press release or company page may help as a source too.

8th most power hungry website[edit]

Might be a bit trivial.


Many users of the site prohibit cheatcc from putting their guide on their site.

Hoax ended[edit]

A hoax was ended on the site[1]


Service which allows advertisers to track demographics across the site might need mentioning. (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Suicide note[edit]

A user posted on the message boards saying he was going to commit suicide, and eventually did.

--Lorson (talk) 02:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

New userbox[edit]

Code Result
G This user is a member of GameFAQs.

--Lorson (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

History of GameFAQs[edit]

Well GameFAQs posted their history on their website for the 40th birthday:
Should the history page be edited to suit the history they wrote? ( (talk) 07:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC))

It might be worth a mention in history, due to this page is about gamefaqs and not just The article mentions that the name was "bought up" so it seems to be a direct predecessor. Raaaps (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

GameFAQs is shut down for maintenance![edit]

Something's wrong with GameFAQs today! I keep trying to go to its website, but the loading keeps taking forever, no matter how many times I click "Refresh"! It seems that the entire website is shut down for maintenance! Do you have any idea when the website will be back on? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyone think we should submit this page to be protected?[edit]

Not sure how often this page gets vandalised or not, but I am curious as to whether or not it should be submitted for page protection. I'd like to get everyone's thoughts on here and before anyone asks...yes I am the host of the GameFAQs Podcast. Venomscarnage (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


This is a great website, but unfortunately I'm tempted to open a featured article review on this article. I don't think that it meets the FA criteria at this point, particularly 1c. It looks like over 2/3 of the citations are to primary sources, which should only be used sparingly. Also, I counted three uncited paragraphs, now tagged with citation needed. Is anyone up to working on the sourcing? Mark Arsten (talk) 01:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Ref formatting is crap too.PumpkinSky talk 01:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I know it's been a long time, but are you still up for opening a featured article review? Because if I could help cite some of the articles that need it. Venomscarnage (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)