Talk:Spore (2008 video game)/External Link Discussions and Disputes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Spore.wikia.com[edit]

I've removed this link and I'm sure that will come with a lot of opposition due to a certain flawed expectation/routine. Here is why I removed it. Ultimately, the external links section should provide for a source of premium content. Simply it being an externally based wiki, *SHOULD NOT BE PRIMARY REASON FOR INCLUSION*. I can name plenty of external sites that offer a lot more spore related content, and thus deserve to either be shown in place of it, or along with it. It's also ran by a single person, as it has an ad.

Additional content is what the external links section is for, therefore it makes no sense to link a source simply because it's based as a wiki, when there are a lot of other sources that offer so much more (xSpore, HoSP, etc...) It's biased and wrong. I can't even find any media on spore.wikia.com. I see no screenshots of the actual game, and no videos.

For this reason, I'm going to continue to remove spore.wikia.com unless someone can provide some insight beyond what I've already provided.

--dache

Spore World / Spore Universe[edit]

I changed the link to Spore World after the anonymous person changed it to Spore Universe by mistake (I just wanted to change the description). Spore World is pretty dern devoid of content, and is horrible site in terms of layout. I don't see a good reason to put it back in... -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:03, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

There are rules against self promotion. The person who is continiously re-adding these links is likely tied to them. It is a crappy site with crappy content on a game that has not even been released. All it is trying to do is leach popularity. Can you imagine how crappy wikipedia would be if any shmuck could make a junk shell of a website and link it as a fan to the topic. thus, stupid link deleted again.

--anonymous

Shouldn't there be one fansite though? 'Spore Universe' had been there since June 2005 and I don't see any reason to delete it now.

--aa2

Should the site show demonstrable content, or become a signifigant place of fan activity, then I would support it's inclusion. As it is, Wiki is not about being a web ring or link depository, and while the site is not unrelated, it is largely overtaken by other examples. Things change though, so should they change for the better I'm certain it will be included. Robovski 00:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. It has to have unique content or a significant member count. Otherwise it's just another page that some guy put up. We can't be linking every page that mentions the game, or the links section would take more space than the whole of the rest of the article. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Currently undergoing an edit war. I don't have time to keep checking today. If someone would report this if it continues, I'd appreciate it. --Kickstart70·Talk 23:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

SporeWiki.com[edit]

SporeWiki.com was removed from the list of links on the 3rd by a contributor with only that as an edit. It's entirely possible it was a way of trying to stop sporewiki from getting the hits that other sites wanted from wikipedia but didn't deserve due to them not being useful for an outside link. SporeWiki is most definitly worthy of an outside link because it has information that can only be found there, and information that can be found other places, but it is far better organized and easy to understand on sporewiki. Will Wright has sent an email to me telling me that he actually looks over the stuff on sporewiki occasionally (as he does with gaming steve), but that's not the point. SporeWiki was for a while the only place that had the full GDC '05 video and for actually IS the host of the full downloadable file that is listed here. It clearly deserves the attention of getting a named link, and I don't think it was ever justified to have it removed. What does everyone else think? Chris M. 07:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Worth noting: The sporewiki doesn't seem to be running any ads. Tlogmer 09:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
It isn't, thanks for pointing that out. Chris M. 12:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I oppose removing SporeWiki's link as it's a highly relevant community. — Saxifrage 18:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I haven't checked out the site myself, but I do agree that a link to a more specific wiki can be a useful supliment to an article; however, one thing I've been wondering is what do you do when there's the case of multiple wikis on the same subject? --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I guess the same thing that is done when there are mutliple fansites on the same subject: link to every one that is good, up to a reasonable number. — Saxifrage 19:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I had been to SporeWiki before, and I hadn't realized the link was removed from the article. I support SporeWiki's inclusion in the links section as there was useful and signifigant content. Robovski 00:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I've stated it before, but I'll put it here again because a anonymous user involved with another fansite has been removing the SporeWiki link. I support SporeWiki's inclusion based simply on its status as an openly editable Wiki. However, it has nothing in it about its copyright status. It is still a larger project at this point than the competing wiki, though (which also has nothing on copyright). -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
It's now under the GFDL (see [1]). --163.1.136.55 11:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I was considering taking back what I said in support of the site based on the lack of license, but no longer. Thanks. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 18:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Spore-Monsters.com[edit]

I've reverted about 8-10 edits from IP addresses trying to include this site. Just now I've added a comment for them to discuss the reversion/addition/reversion cycle here on the talk page. I'm getting pretty sick of this and hope we can either somehow more quickly revert them to make it pointless for them to continue, or have them beef up their content to the point that inclusion is actually worth something (I doubt it). It's a low-content fan site and is not notable enough for inclusion here at this time. Disagreement? If not, please give me a hand keeping the spammers out. --Kickstart70·Talk 00:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello
I am a staff member there (http://www.spore-monsters.com/) (I don't write the content, i just admin the site); and to be honest, I think that you can't really call it a low-content site. There aren't 1000's of pages or anything, but not much is known about this game. But I still guess I half agree with you. Soon we will probably be the ultimate Spore resource site. *soon* ;)
ps, oops, not sure how to work this thing. When I edited it, it didn't display correctly. *confused* —This unsigned comment was added by Moonrat506 (talkcontribs) .
this is me again. i believe that spore monsters has enough content/good forum community to be put on it. thoughts? (www.spore-monsters.com) Moonrat506 09:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC) ?

Added a link; no one has complained, and the message above was left a few days ago. thanks. Moonrat506 11:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Just becuase there is a lack of concencous doesn't mean it should be added. The other site that arugued for being added to the links actually had people support it. No support, no link. Come back when you have more content than you do now and try again. KungPaoChicken 11:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Ok. No offence, but did you actually look at the site again... There have been no (logged) referals from any wikipedia link in the last hour...*confused* —This unsigned comment was added by Moonrat506 (talkcontribs) .
I didn't find any significant information that cannot be found on the wikipedia article. I was under the impression that the general rule of thumb for wikipedia is to avoid linking outside to info that can be found inside. Also, please sign your posts with a ~~~~ KungPaoChicken 12:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I, for one, never click a link on Wikipedia that I am investigating for legitimacy. I always copy the link and paste it into my browser so that no referral ever shows up. That could be why you got no referrals in your logs. — Saxifrage 20:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
There was support to have it stay off (as can be seen from numerous removals of the link). The people who have removed that link are people who have been here (and not an IP with just 1 edit like the one who removed sporewiki). So it had support to be removed. You simply stuck in a message saying it has enough content to be put in, provided no evidence of this, and received no support, then put it in. Wait til you get support for doing something that is contrary to numerous edits by numerous people who understand wikipedia policy. There simply isn't anything on that site that makes it worthwhile to be here when gamingsteve and sporewiki are. Chris M. 13:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

might as well delete this this yeh? —This unsigned comment was added by Moonrat506 (talkcontribs) .

Talk page activity is kept and eventually archived, so no, it shouldn't be deleted. — Saxifrage 21:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, you have the potential to have a site that is notable enough for inclusion here. But it's going to require effort and time on your part and the part of others. If you really want the best Spore-related fan site on the internet, the time to start is now, and when the time comes that you reach that level, I'm certain that others will notice and put the site here and elsewhere. Sites without care, thought and wonderful content are a dime a dozen on the internet. It takes considerable effort and a little luck to stand out from the crowd. Just for an example, page through the 'featured' articles on the front page. The stuff that made them notable enough that they were featured is the same things that help sites on the internet be noticable. --Kickstart70·Talk 23:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed - your site has potential, but right now it is nothing special. I don't want to offend you, but as I said in a different comment above, Wiki isn't a web ring, nor a link depository. I think your site is more attractive than some of the others I've seen for Spore, but currently there isn't that much going on on your forum, and no content I haven't seen elsewhere. Changing the content issue will be difficult, but if you had a thriving forum or something else of noteworthy, signifigant or unique to offer I would offer my support, like I did for SporeWiki. Robovski 23:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

GamingSteve.com / PlanetSpore.co.uk[edit]

OK, this is an ongoing issue and it isn't going to just go away. I've noticed that right now we don't have any community Spore sites listed, and while I didn't support the inclusion of the Spore Monsters site (discussion above) I do think we should have at least one major 'community' site listed. To be clear, I have no such site and I am not affiliated nor currently frequent such a site. I do think we should have at least one, but I don't want this to be a web ring either, so I thought I'd discuss this here with you kind Wiki folk. The recent Planet Spore entry http://www.planetspore.co.uk/ certainly has more material than other sites I've seen, but Gaming Steve's (currently linked to via 13 month old news article on Spore on the current list) discussion forum http://gamingsteve.com/blab/index.php?board=12.0 is much more active. Anyone else have any suggestions? Oppose or support? Please sign all comments below. Robovski 00:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

We do have a community site linked, which is SporeWiki. Another might not hurt, but planetspore makes my eyes bleed. — Saxifrage 01:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Aye. Made me shudder at first sight. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 22:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Gaming Steve is THE Spore forum on the internet at the moment (which is a more closely knit community the a wiki), so it should be linked more then that. Steve is responsible for a lot of the info here in some respects and his forums spurred on a majority of these other fansites (I've watched them being spawned myself :)). Chris M. 18:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll go along with that - so Gaming Steve it will be unless anyone else has some further input? Robovski 22:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Gaming Steve is a major factor in bringing out Spore news and awareness. He should get more credit for this and his Spore message board needs recognition. We've just gotta put it in Ryuukuro 04:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I put gamingsteve on the list with a little phrase, feel free to edit it to make it better please, thanks. Chris M. 02:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Looks good. — Saxifrage 03:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Whats the policy with 'mirror' links of videos? And how many mirrors does one need for a single video? -KPC
It's good having the video content linked for reference, but I don't think we need more than 1 reliable link to each different video. I'd prefer such sources be independent and generally freely available. Robovski 14:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiStylee 21:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC):::http://www.planetspore.com, also known as http://www.planetspore.co.uk, continually attempts to put multiple links to their site in the External Links section. This vandalism (unnecessary spam) will not be tolerated -- especially since this site is nowhere near the quality of other sites' coverage of Spore (http://www.gamingsteve.com and http://www.xspore.com, for example) WikiStylee 03:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Added Official Spore Trailer & G4 links - very cool media player at xspore.com

Planet Spore was created on 28th March 2005, and was the first ever Spore site in existence. Since then, it has reached over 250 members, 282 screenshots and downloads for all Spore videos released so far. At this current point in time, it does not contain much information on the Spore game itself, due to the site having undergone a re-design recently. However, in the past, and for almost one year, it was the number one source for Spore information. Planet Spore updates it's news the day it is revealed on other sites, in a timely fashion (it is impossible to expect one teenager to be able to update news every single second). It posts articles, screenshots videos and new information released on Spore. I added Planet Spore to Wikipedia's External Links section very soon after the site launched. Repeatedly, my link was removed and the reason for removal was "Wikipedia is not a lik depository". I accepted that, and did not attempt to add my link again for some time. However, recently, I noticed an increase in the number of community sites in the External Links section, with some links actually linking to the same site twice (e.g. GamingSteve.com, xSpore.com and SporeWiki.com). I do not believe that these sites are horrible. On the contrary, I visit them, and agree that they offer good quality news and information on Spore. However, I did not believe it fair that links (and multiple links, at that) to other community sites should be allowed, if Planet Spore was not. Therefore, I did remove some links to other sites a few times, and other times added Planet Spore's link back. After speaking to an Administrator at SporeWiki.com, I have since then not touched the external links section to REPLACE a link, only to add a link to either Planet Spore's home page, direct links to videos, or a link to the video page itself. I believe that Planet Spore deserves to be placed in the External Links section, even if it simple a link to its video collection (which was what I attempted to link to), forums, news page or even screenshots page. As the first Spore site, and a popular source for information and a welcoming, friendly community, it should be treated with the same fairness and respect as other community Spore sites.I will not add Planet Spore's link back until I recieve permission to do so. However, until I do recieve permission, I will continue to pursue this case, and provide reasons and arguments for why the site should be included. I am happy to talk with anyone who believes Planet Spore should not be placed in the External Links section. As a note, I would also like to point out that I have never posted any link to Planet Spore with the description of "Great Site! Cool COmmunity! WICKED!" or anything like that. If that kind of link did appear, it was not me. SashP 20:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
280 registered members is a minor forum, and still speaks nothing of the number of active users or posts. Also, I mean no offense but the site's layout is horrible. It doesn't scale properly to different resolutions, and the colours and strange fonts are not needed in the slightest. Simplicity wins. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
By all means Consumed but that's a crappy argument. I find it horrid to see as comments in capital letters NOT to include that site till we find some sort of solution. What do you propose? Nothing I guess. It's either we include it or not. So why not include BOTH and let this matter rest? Wikipedia is not a place to advertise indeed but come to your senses, please. Planet Spore may not be the most active site, but you need to find better reasons in order to exclude it for the external links. Phoebusγράψε μου κάτι 22:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
One has to provide arguements as to why a site like this should be on the External Links, not the other way around. I could go onto Google, grab every Spore fan site from the web and put them in external links and then have you try to prove me wrong on each on individually. However, that's insane. If we did that with Spore and every other article about something popular, most of the Wikipedia would be a web directory. At that, the external links section already has several well-warranted links with unique content; all Planet Spore seems to be is a Portal site. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 23:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The impetus is NOT on the people arguing for exclusion. Wikipedia is not a link repository, etc. etc. Anyway, the style guide WP:External Links recommends a link to one fansite, and even that should be done sparingly. SubSeven 00:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree SubSeven. But I think you cant dismiss that easily what SashP has said. Having a website being the sole source of info for the game for a year or so is enough to include in the ext.links for me at this time... not that it matters that much to me though, but I found it very, very rude towards any editor to read something like that in the comments like "whatever you do, we will change it back, you can't win". I'm debating over this, not because of Spore since including ANY link in the article will not make it any better or worse as a game, but because WP offers so much space -practically endless space- so as to exclude just 1(one) line from the article is just moronic, and to keep debating spending precious bandwidth is ever more stupid than that. And we're talking about a line that indeed has/had something to say about Spore, its inclusion is not unjustified in anyway. Unjustified I find the exclusion. Anyway, it's not my article, el:Spore (παιχνίδι) is and both websites are included. Cheers Phoebusγράψε μου κάτι 01:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how you can "have" an article, but that's besides the point. We're not debating bandwidth, we're debating this over fairness for all Spore fansites, and general clutter. As I said, the External Links section would be useless if we didn't discriminate. PlanetSpore is far from the "sole source of info for the game for a year or so" either. Gaming Steve's site is included because that is the first place where Spore screenshots and videos seeped from and does indeed seem to have the most active forum. You've made no point for including this site other than "it can't hurt to add another link". -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I have said above that this is not a link depository. I have also said (above) that we should have an external site, and we ended up going with Gaming Steve and SporeWiki, mostly as they are superior examples of what we want to see and very usefull to the people we expect would come and read the Spore article. I'm not directly opposed to PlanetSpore, as I'm not offended by the color scheme (it's not pretty, but that's my taste and its not my site) and I do go there to read the forums and check out the media resources (like I do other places). So I don't think Planet Spore is worthless. That's not the point. We are either going to let any site with something to offer be listed or we are going to try to have to set some kind of standard we have to hold a site to to be included. I think we could clean up what videos we link to and where those are through - and we could accomodate Planet Sore by linking a video through them (and different videos through other sites). The link I added for Gaming Steve to external links (they are listed a second time in references as a reference) is a direct link to the forum, which I have to admit is the busiest Spore forum I have found. SporeWiki is a Spore Wikisite, and will be immensly usefull as a resource once the game is launched, and I'm generally pro linking to independent wikisites. Like Pheobus said, we don't have a space limitation to deal with here, and like Consumed said if we included everything we'd be a link directory. But Planet Spore can provide the service of hosting the vid clip, and should they be reliable at doing that I think they should be allowed to be linked through the clip from the article. Robovski 01:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Consumed Crustacean, I never said you or I "have" articles, it's just that we oversee them more regularly, especially if we started them, as editors. I believe you understand the difference, right? But that's besides the point. So, to the matter at hand, instead of making a comparison to GamingSteve.com, try debunking what SashP said. If you can prove that Planet Spore was NOT the only source of information then I'm with you. But I think you can't do that - not that what SashP is can't be falsified, but I know for a fact that when I was looking a while back for info the only Spore related site was that. But still, that's besides the point. The point is: does _this_ present moment Planet Spore provide information about the game? If not, then it should be excluded. But if it does (and it does) you have NO RIGHT to exclude it from the list. I find it funny how you immediately and naively separate Planet Spore from all the other Spore fansites as clutter. Shame on you for suggesting that. And, on the contrary, find it pathetic that you still stand up against a simple argument. You can rephrase me all you want from now and on, grow up and learn that you don't lose any face if you get along with a simple and REASONABLE request. I for one will not get into an edit war with anyone, but I hope someone other than you will understand how things work. If YOU understand it though, well... you'll make me a happy man. Over and out Phoebusγράψε μου κάτι 05:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
28th March 2005 is when Planet Spore was started. That's also around when Gamespot/Gamespy/IGN/Gaming Steve and every other video game site on the internet starting buzzing about Spore. How could Planet Spore have been the "sole source of information"? Gaming Steve's page with the early Spore screenshots was posted on March 14. Planet Spore was late. The point is: does _this_ present moment Planet Spore provide information about the game? If not, then it should be excluded. But if it does (and it does) you have NO RIGHT to exclude it from the list. What do you not understand about this? There are a tonne of websites that provide information on Spore. Are you seriously suggesting we include every single one? I find it funny how you immediately and naively separate Planet Spore from all the other Spore fansites as clutter. I'm not supporting inclusion of any fansite unless there's a a very good reason to do so. One of the sites included is a Wiki - guess what Wikipedia is? One of the sites was the first to have a recap of the GDC conference and is also mirroring a video - I wonder why that's there? The others aren't fansites but have unique Spore-related content (videos, mainly). Planet Spore is a fansite and does not have unique content. Why should we include it? Paint me as a badguy for not letting the guy have free publicity all you like, but it would be unfair to any other Spore fansite if we included this one and not them. Then, like I said, we'd have a load of useless External Links that all provide the same thing. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 18:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to thank Phoebus and Robovski for seeing my points. Clearly there are a few things that Wikipedia members believe makes Planet Spore unsuitable for the External Links section. Firstly, the design. Whilst I do not believe at all that a site should simply not be linked due to it having a design which someone doesn't like, I can understand where members are coming from. The website was only re-designed recently, and over the past year and a few months, has gone through numerous design changes. Since this one has failed, I will add a new one, after E3 is done. This leads me on to the next point. Currently, I have all the Spore information Planet Spore had, tucked away in a file on my hard drive. I was in the process of transferring information to the new site pages, but it has been difficult due to E3 and time issues. I will make this my top priority once the new site design comes online. As for the number of members, GamingSteve is, as far as I can tell, an anomaly. His site went from no visitors to thousands in just a few days. That was probably down to a lot of things, including advertising, his contacts in the industry, his exclusive information on Spore, and all other gaming information and news he presents. For this reason, I will stand by the view I have had for a long time, that GamingSteve should not be considered in the same league as other Spore fan-sites, but as a website in the league of GameSpot or GameSpy. I still think that Planet Spore deserves to be on the External Links section, even if it is a link to the video list. Also I would like to confirm that Planet Spore WAS the first ever Spore fansite, even before GamingSteve, so Crustacean was wrong in saying the first Spore screenshots came from him; they came from GameSpot and GameSpy and were also posted on Planet Spore.SashP 07:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
You stated March 28 as Planet Spore's creation date. Gaming Steve had coverage before then. March 11 is when he had the GDC podcast, and is why he has any popularity at all. March 14 is when he posted the screenshots. March 15 is when he started what is a relatively active Spore forum. I'm not sure how you had screenshots before you started. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 18:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiStylee 19:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)PlanetSpore's layout is hideous, true, but that's no argument for its exclusion. I feel partially responsible for initiating a debate that appears to be going nowhere simply for the fact that the opinions voiced thus far don't lay out a clear philosophy with regards to the Spore External Links section. Let me start by reviewing the Spore “community sites” that are listed. http://www.gamingsteve.com seems to be a generally accepted link and rightfully so. From time to time, Gaming Steve provides exclusive content first that can be referenced in the wiki. In addition, gamingsteve.com boasts the most active Spore community on the web. http://www.sporewiki.com being linked from a wikipedia makes sense. They are an ad free Spore information powerhouse that utilizes the same community driven information system as wikipedia and it does so in very good fashion. http://www.xspore.com has a custom Spore media player and was recently front page on digg.com for hosting E3 videos and reported experiencing 99MBps bandwidth / 22,000 unique visitors in just a few hours – If you're a techie, you know this means they are a reliable link for media references. http://www.planetspore.com is ugly, but that is not why it doesn't belong in the External Links section. It does not have the exclusives or the community of GamingSteve, the detailed information database of SporeWiki, or the reliable Media of xSpore. Wikipedia is not a search engine and is not a link depository either. Nobody has to provide a website with sufficient reasons for exclusion, it is simply the other way around. Seth has clearly stated planetspore.com should be included because it was there first. Being there first has simply nothing to do with being a wikipedia reference. Yahoo and Google are examples of places where planetspore does belong. As of now, Wikipedia is an example of a place that it doesn't. Sorry for starting this debate and I openly invite anybody to find fallacy in my logic.

OK let's agree on one thing first: Including a link, not matter what the article is, requires substantial evidence in order to reason doing so. Having that in mind Planet Spore qualifies. BUT as we all agree (hopefully), WP is not a place to include every single website that may have info on a subject. (*)So we have to choose which are clearly ahead, in matter of info size, directory structure, further linking yada yada yada yada. For that matter WikiStylee you tried to justify the inclusion of gamingsteve.com and I agree, xspore.com where I also agree and sporewiki.com where I don't agree - not the inclusion but your justification. You asked for a logical fallacy and there you have it. You justify the inclusion of sporewiki.com in the Ext.Links because... it is already linked by WP. You have fallen into a logical loop there I'm afraid. To correct you to go * and see why sporewiki.com deserves an inclusion. I have 0 problems with Planet Spore being excluded but I have tons of problems with anyone who naively tries to belittle one's efforts as clutter and WP-relatedly with anyone who (unjustifiably then, hopefully not now) tried to scare away others who wished for the inclusion with the method of "WHATEVER YOU DO IT WILL BE REVERTED". I find THAT hideous and ugly because for the moment I care mostly for what WP provides, not GamingSteve.com or Planet Spore.com or whatever. So, that's all folks. Make up your mind and I will follow your lead in the greek equivalent in el:Spore (παιχνίδι). Phoebusγράψε μου κάτι 20:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
My reason stated for sporewiki's inclusion was, and I quote, "They are an ad free Spore information powerhouse that utilizes the same community driven information system as wikipedia and it does so in very good fashion." Clearly, I didn't say that their inclusion was justified because it was already linked - perhaps English isn't your strongest language and by that I mean no offense. Where one could argue that http://www.sporewiki.com doesn't deserve inclusion, and a point that I'm starting to lean on, is that it makes no sense to link from one wiki to another. It's entirely possible for http://www.wikipedia.org to cover Spore in the exact same fashion as sporewiki.com. Thoughts? WikiStylee 20:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, I agree 100% with you Phoebus Panagopoulos with regards to the "WHATEVER YOU DO IT WILL BE REVERTED" bullying tactics. I myself was so fed up with the external links spamming that I played a part in that crap that I now regret - it's unprofessional and immature. WikiStylee 20:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia often links to other Wikis, especially if they're openly editable and/or MediaWiki-based as Wikipedia is. It helps prevent fan cruft and such from becoming too prevelant here, and gives people a link to a Wiki where everything is related to the topic they're interested in. It seems to be a tradition to include a Wiki link wherever it's possible. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I support SporeWiki for these reasons, as well as that it will (hopefully) become a real resource for gamers after the game is actually released, like most of the other independent gaming wikis I have used. The article should not only be informative, but usefull to the potential reader, and I think once the game is released there will be both people looking to find out "what is Spore anyhow?" and "where can I get in-depth game info?". Our article here is not for community discussion, game tips, fan fiction, ect... but SporeWiki is, and people will want that. But I think we are agreed that SporeWiki should stay - we have a direct issue over PlanetSpore and a larger issue of fansites in general and we need to resolve the issue to keep the balance between the open nature of Wiki and the will to keep out spam and self-promotion. PlanetSpore is usefull, but is it usefull enough? Not for External Links, at least at the moment. Hence my earlier recommendation to link to a video from there for a reference item, so that there is a connection but keeping the links to a minimum (as we'd have any particular unique video referenced anyway). This does assume that PlanetSpore can effectivley support the bandwith and traffic that would result so that there are no service interruptions. Robovski 23:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This is insane, if we make a small list of major fansites that get it's own part of the link section we are done. Don't like three times to gaming steve, it's not even a real spore site, it only is the location of the main spore discussion board. If you link to Gamingsteve in the spore context, link to the spore forum and NOT to the mainpage. There is no single reason not to link to fansites, they are the main news source and are of the interest of the wikireader. I think we should link to the Gamingsteve spore forum, sporecentral.net, sporewiki and maybe some others I don't know. we could always look on sporewiki for the list http://www.sporewiki.com/Links ;) well..that are my two cents..I don't like important information being edited out. Wikipedia is a free speech medium that we have to keep free of spam and other nonsense, but fansites are a key part of a wiki abou ta game. Gvanraaphorst

You just ignored the whole conversation. There are 14 Spore fansites on that Wiki. There is little to be gained by linking to all of them, except for obscuring the sites with original content. I do however think... -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

... that Gaming Steve's website should have one of its links knocked off (the summary of the GDC presentation is useless when another link has a video of it), and the other one changed to a direct link to his forums. The latter is because his site is not Spore-specific, but is a general gaming/technology site, while the forums are spore-specific and very active relative to other Spore fansites (point me to a Spore forum that's more popular, and we can change the link). I'm going ahead and making these changes, but please discuss them if you want to revert. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made some additional changes. I found that some links were still duplicated through the Sporewiki Links page links we already had, and since that listed a plethora of links I went and ditched other duplicates. I changed the Trailer link to the official site link as surely there can be no better source for that video, and moved the old 2005 info to reference as we have new material since E3 2006. I made one copy edit to reflect the new information, but like I've said below, I think we need a complete overhaul of the article to reflect new information, move development into a sub-article with a paragraph (like procedural generation), and generally clean up some of the text, trivia, and speculation in anticipation of the game actually comming out next year. Robovski 02:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
All good changes. 24.76.102.140 00:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to be removing some of the links. Having so many external links is not necessary. Ex. the link to the "high def" video of Spore on the official site. People can find that themselves. Also, why all the movie links? Link to one site that has most of them and that should be enough. Keep in mind that WP is not a link repository. Havok (T/C/c) 11:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Complaint About SporeWiki[edit]

xSpore.com recently created a Spore wiki by request of their members. Shortly after, staff at Sporewiki.com arrived and began maliciously assaulting xSpore's forums. Here is one of the remaining examples. Clearly, calling out another site on their forums is not only unprofessional but in all actuality downright rude. This is relevant here because shortly after this stunt the staff at Sporewiki.com made major edits to the external links section of this site. Removing every other Spore community site, they have left two links pointing in their direction. Many editors here had already questioned why their site was even included in the links section at all – those in favor were staff members of their site. Unfortunately this post is likely to be flamed by the staff of Sporewiki but hopefully somebody not affiliated with their site will put in their 2 cents. I am in favor of removing their links.WikiStylee

Was the vandalism to the Wikipedia done by Sporewiki staff members as well? As well, could you point out some evidence that the Sporewiki staff were the ones spamming about on xspore? I don't like the sounds of this stupid competiton :/ -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 17:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure. How do you get IP's on wikipedia? Mason11987 (aka Chris M) is the most obvious culprit. His IP on xSpore was 65.185.197.175 and 24.74.88.166.WikiStylee 18:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

ip's are associated with the same place.

traceroute to 65.185.197.175 (65.185.197.175), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets static.theplanet.com 12.401 ms 1.698 ms 1.848 ms vl1.dsr01.dllstx5.theplanet.com (70.84.160.129) 0.363 ms 0.338 ms 0.230 ms po51.dsr01.dllstx3.theplanet.com (70.85.127.105) 0.489 ms 0.339 ms 0.360 ms 5.7f.5546.static.theplanet.com (70.85.127.5) 0.364 ms 0.341 ms 0.237 ms aer1-ge-6-3.dallasequinix.savvis.net (208.175.175.41) 0.363 ms 0.418 ms 0.476 ms dpr1-ge-0-3-0.dallasequinix.savvis.net (204.70.194.9) 0.495 ms 0.534 ms 0.483 ms 208.173.178.138 (208.173.178.138) 0.737 ms 0.664 ms 0.605 ms bb1-dls-P0-0.atdn.net (66.185.133.80) 0.740 ms 0.908 ms 0.728 ms bb1-hou-P6-0.atdn.net (66.185.152.133) 6.228 ms 6.289 ms 6.227 ms bb1-atm-P7-0.atdn.net (66.185.152.184) 23.215 ms 23.240 ms 23.271 ms bb1-cha-P6-0.atdn.net (66.185.152.183) 28.056 ms 28.061 ms 28.100 ms pop1-cha-P5-0.atdn.net (66.185.138.65) 27.958 ms 27.940 ms 28.053 ms RR-Charlotte.atdn.net (66.185.138.78) 37.455 ms 38.934 ms 38.834 ms pos8-0.chrlncsa-rtr2.carolina.rr.com (24.93.64.62) 38.852 ms pos9-0.chrlncsa-rtr2.carolina.rr.com (24.93.64.22) 38.757 ms 37.692 ms 24.93.66.230(24.93.66.230) 37.457 ms 39.092 ms 39.011 ms srp1-1.chrlncgst-rtr1.carolina.rr.com (24.93.70.203) 39.819 ms 39.665 ms 39.810 ms gig0-1.chrlncgst-ubr2.carolina.rr.com (24.93.66.174) 40.251 ms 40.481 ms 39.040 ms

traceroute to 24.74.88.166 (24.74.88.166), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets static.theplanet.com (**HIDDEN**) 0.710 ms 0.778 ms 1.059 ms vl1.dsr01.dllstx5.theplanet.com (70.84.160.129) 0.309 ms 0.246 ms 0.281 ms po51.dsr01.dllstx3.theplanet.com (70.85.127.105) 0.371 ms 0.374 ms 0.293 ms 5.7f.5546.static.theplanet.com (70.85.127.5) 0.386 ms 0.342 ms 0.292 ms ge-6-1.car4.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.78.224.13) 0.509 ms 0.662 ms 0.479 ms ae-31-51.ebr1.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.68.122.30) 3.024 ms ae-31-55.ebr1.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.68.122.158) 0.584 ms ae-1.ebr1.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.69.132.45) 12.857 ms ae-3.ebr1.Atlanta2.Level3.net (4.69.132.82) 20.917 ms 29.068 ms ae-2.ebr1.Washington1.Level3.net (4.69.132.86) 44.684 ms * 38.314 ms ae-11-55.car1.Washington1.Level3.net (4.68.121.146) 33.593 ms ae-2.ebr1.Washington1.Level3.net (4.69.132.86) 36.311 ms ae-11-53.car1.Washington1.Level3.net (4.68.121.82) 34.321 ms 4.79.228.30 (4.79.228.30) 40.824 ms 67.29.172.10 (67.29.172.10) 40.945 ms 4.79.228.30 (4.79.228.30) 41.103 ms pos8-0.chrlncsa-rtr1.carolina.rr.com (24.93.64.86) 47.368 ms 67.29.172.10 (67.29.172.10) 40.780 ms pos8-0.chrlncsa-rtr1.carolina.rr.com (24.93.64.86) 47.312 ms 24.93.66.237 (24.93.66.237) 46.066 ms 45.767 ms 47.430 ms 24.93.66.237 (24.93.66.237) 46.314 ms 24.93.70.206 (24.93.70.206) 46.607 ms 46.492 ms gig0-2.chrlnccrm-ubr3.carolina.rr.com (24.93.65.182) 45.823 ms 24.93.70.206 (24.93.70.206) 48.279 ms gig0-2.chrlnccrm-ubr3.carolina.rr.com (24.93.65.182) 46.173 ms gig0-2.chrlnccrm-ubr3.carolina.rr.com (24.93.65.182) 48.468 ms

I don't think you can get IPs as a non-admin. You may have luck with the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, though I don't know if they're aloud to give IPs out or not (edit: or if they even have access to them). Worth a shot. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Those IP addresses are from rr.com, which is RoadRunner. They are much like AOL in that they operate a gigantic network. That the traces both go to RoadRunner is usually insignificant.
In any case, this page is for discussing the article, not chatting about the Spore community. As such, your internecine conflict is not really welcome here and I think most non-involved parties would appreciate it if you kept the drama to yourself. — Saxifrage 20:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Except that the drama, according to him, leaked into Wikipedia with a couple of unkind edits. We've also got two potential Wikis to get the "obligatory Wiki link". Though Sporewiki still looks to deserve it more, since it is at the moment more of an indepth project. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh good lord, how did I know this was comming when I saw the post at the xSpore forum. I don't want to be a part of some conflict (percieved or real) between the 2 sites. This is no place for any such thing in any event. This should be a neutral ground - I don't want to remove references and links through either sites, but I will support such measures if this mess comes in here. Robovski 23:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Being the "culprit" of "malicious" action, I'd like to see exactly what action I committed that deserved that label. I saw xspore made a wiki and made a post on your forums because it angered me that you went and copied our main page almost to a tee, and I also wanted to create the best possible spore wiki and was hoping that getting the communitees TOGETHER would create the best possible wiki, I did not want warring sites because that is retarded and because that helps noone, ESPECIALLY the users looking for information. xSporeWIki had the name SporeWiki and was very very similar to sporewiki in main page and in some other fasions (it still is, compare the main pages if you like).
  • Which edit EXACTLY did someone from sporewiki use to remove every other site and how do you know it was someone from sporewiki that did it?
  • There were MANY people in favor of keeping it here, most are not staff members of our site, please don't make claims withour support.
  • I never flamed you, or your site. I only stated facts, your main page was copied exactly from sporewiki, anyone can see that.
  • Both of the given IPs are in fact mine, I don't see where they made vandalizing edits here though, in fact only one of those made one edit to the spore page, and it was legit.
I made a follow up post to that thread you probably linked to (I have been banned from xspore.com, so I can't verify anything he is linking here with), but you deleted it as I have been informed by a friend who I had visit your site to check it. My follow up post was the proof of the exact copying (code was character for character the same in MANY places), and a plea that if we couldn't work as one combined wiki, maybe we could work as two wiki's that link to eachother, that way at least the users of both wiki's would be able to get the best possible info. If we didn't have it, they'd look there, and vice versa. That would be the next-best thing to having just one wiki. I do not have any hard feelings towards xspore and in fact, I think you have an awesome site. But you acted rashly in banning me and in not listening to me. And since wikipedia has the Assume good faith policy, I hope that can be done here. Provide evidence to the claims you are making, or do not make them. I have never done anything to remove justified links in spore, and I have been a member of wikipedia LONG before I was a part of sporewiki and have wikipedia standards of community and encyclopedia to upheld. I will not make personal attacks on you, but I will point out that a lot of your edits have been VERY rash actions, against planetspore, then against me. I hope we can be civil in discussing this. Chris M. 20:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, the only computer I've been near in the last week has been this one, with this ip. Chris M. 20:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
You posted this complaint at 03:05, May 16, 2006, according to a friend, I made the topic on xspore.com on 05-13-2006, 05:43 PM. Between those two dates there were only two edits I could find that removed links that weren't put on the edit before (spam edits), and those were legit, and by robo or crustacean here. So, what are you talking about? Did I miss it? Chris M. 20:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
You deleted my post in that thread you most likely linked to, it is likely you did a soft delete, and can undelete that post. If you did a hard delete you will still be able to recover it. If you could do that, it should help out these discussions quite a bit, thank you. here is my reference of the first post (not the deleted one), and as long as the one on your forums stays exactly the same as this, it is legitimate. Chris M. 21:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, what on Earth? I've been contributing to SporeWiki for a while now (since April), having contributed some to this page. I had noticed that xSpore had set up a wiki, and that they had essentially copied SporeWiki, but there was no particular hard feeling or vandalism. I've looked through Chris' edits over there and none are malicious or vandalistic in nature. Quite what this discussion is doing on Wikipedia, I don't know. The request to have SporeWiki's link removed is ridiculous, in my opinion - they are certainly the largest wiki source available on Spore and I can't see anything meriting the link's removal. --163.1.136.55 14:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't seem malicous to me. More like a Cease and Decist letter. Besides, It could have just been bad timing that A Troll came on not too soon after that. Seriously. Also, I've looked at Xspore's wiki, And it really doesn't stand up compaired to Sporewiki.com in terms of article amount, quality and length.-Sgore 19:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

xSpore.com[edit]

Since I dare not remove a sites links from the external sites list. I am simply curious if there has been a consensus on xSpore being in the links section since every other fansite on that list has been discussed and a consensus has been reached on it's inclusion, it would only be fair to have the same here. Chris M. 16:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Since WikiStylee adamantly removed links to planetspore when they hosted videos then quickly put the xspore link in to serve the same purpose of the planetspore one they removed 6 hours earlier. It would seem only fair to give them the same careful judgement that had been given to another site at the time. Because I was not the only person here who talked about fair and equal qualifications amongst all fansites, but I'd like to see it carried out not only upon planetspore, sporewiki, and sporemonsters (three sites that were and still are added and removed), but upon xspore. Chris M. 16:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Just saw a mention by WikiStylee about the evidence for it's inclusion, but since it was more of an in passing point while discussing another issue, it might deserve it's own section for discussion in case it gets brought up in the future we can point directly to this section to reinforce our future decision, as we do for planetspore, sporewiki, and sporemonsters in their respected sections (planetspore being the majority of the "external links" section discussion). Chris M. 16:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, xSpore has a slightly more active forum (which isn't saying much, especially compared to the behemoth that is Gaming Steve's Spore forum), and a nicer site layout, but I'm not sure those are reasons enough for inclusion over Spore Monsters or Planet Spore. I'm curious to hear some sort of supporting arguement. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 18:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
xSpore's number of members (at the time of writing) is 269, the number of posts is 960 and the number of topics is 98. This means, averaging it out, each member has 0.28[...] posts each and there is an average of 9.7[...] posts per topic. That's hardly active. Check the member list; most members have 0 or close to that number of posts. Looks like either people join for the sake of it, or someone's registering multiple times to make the forum look big. I personally think xSpore is a good site, but not as great for content as other sites. It's media player is good, yes, though horribly makes the videos out of proportion, and the site design is excellent. But I believe that other sites deserve a place on the External Sites list (not necessarily mine, Planet Spore). And from what I have SEEN of xSpore.com, whilst it may not be true, the community and members aren't as welcoming as other forums. SashP
Does anyone have a supporting argument? I just did the whole "be bold" thing and removed it from the external links. I mean, the community is puny, and besides looking nicer it doesn't meet any of the criteria people were using in the Spore Monster and Planet Spore discussions. If someone re-adds it, please add an argument here as well. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that the two commented messages there are a little harsh. I'm going to change them to more "friendly" messages that are general in scope, instead of just specific to those couple sites. Chris M. 13:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
xSpore.com was listed on Digg.com which brings us quite a bit of traffic to the site. Many people registered to view the media player videos. Our member post count and things like that have nothing to do with our site's activity, and therefore is not a valid reason for removing us from Wikipedia. The fact is -- our site receives over 10,000 unique visitors and almost 50,000 page impressions per day. This was caused by digg and those visitors are coming back every day. This shows that our site is valued by those interested in the game, and that the level of coverage we provide, combined with the sheer amount of game information that we have on xSpore.com brings our site above the rest. As for our members being "less welcoming," you're going to have members like that at any community. And I'm not sure what you're talking about with the video proportion issue -- I'm not seeing that issue from this computer (Firefox/IE -- both tested). Other sites do not have the ability (besides GamingSteve) to bring exclusive and quality content to those interested in the game in the future. As a matter of fact, we have direct contacts with people associated with Spore -- something that none of the other sites listed here have (besides GamingSteve, which obviously is an exception). This means that in the future, xSpore will be bringing exclusive interviews and other content not found elsewhere, provided to us directly from EA/Maxis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.214.222 (talkcontribs)
Just to expand on the revert explanation that was given to this IP when they added xspore.com back to the external sites link: From Wikipedia:External links
Links to normally avoid
   ...
   9. A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article.
   ...
NOTE relating to items #3 and #9: Because of neutrality & point-of-view concerns, a primary policy of Wikipedia is that no one from a particular site/organization should post links to that organization/site etc. Because neutrality is such an important -- and difficult -- objective at Wikipedia, this takes precedence over other policies defining what should be linked. The accepted procedure is to post the proposed links in the Talk section of the article, and let other - neutral - Wikipedia editors decide whether or not it should be included.
So if a link was removed per doubts, a consensus by neutral editors should be made before the link is readded, there are plenty who check here. Chris M. 20:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah! The pleasing fresh air of best practice! Thanks Chris M., I wholeheartedly endorse this approach. Robovski 21:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
With that in mind, I am removing Sporewiki and adding xSpore.WikiStylee 22:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, I never had much of a problem with being inclusive, and I was working on a way to include xSpore into the article without it needing to be an external link, but this is ridiculous. Not only do you keep adding xSpore back on, but you remove your competition (SporeWiki) and add comments saying that xSpore shouldn't be removed and SporeWiki shouldn't be added, and then have the gaul to say that it is per the discussion on this talk page. Whatever special dimension you seem to be occupying isn't supported by the reality evident on this page. I'm leaving the external links in place because maybe I'm out of line, and I will bow to the consensus, but I'm put right off xSpore now. As it has been stated, xSpore is NOT a major community site. It may have 'special' connections but so do I, and so does Gaming Steve, and I bet other places too. I didn't think it was a bad site, far from it. I visited reather frequently last month to check out the site, see the screenshots and read the forum. The design has always be irrelevant to me, but the forum is minor. This isn't a link depository, and while it's nice to let everyone have thier mention, it's not the place of Wikipedia to provide free advertising and/or be a web ring. Currently the Gaming Steve forum has a list of fan sites, and SporeWiki does as well, and a person can always Google or Yahoo for more. Robovski 23:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
The fact is, consensus has been made on sporewiki, and consensus has not been made on xspore. Sporewiki was readded (and it was agreed that they should be re-added) by several non-affiliated wikipedia editors. Therefore until a consensus has actually been reached (and it has not) I stand by the idea that only those that have been added by consensus of un-biased editors should be listed. If I can find a place to mention this to other editors, I will do so. The edit from 65.185.197.175 was me. Chris M. 00:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
With what "in mind"? No consensus has been reached, the link should not be readded, as Chris M. said. You have not presented any argument for inclusion that places this site reasonably above all the other fansites that have had to be excluded. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

This is getting silly. There is no rule that says that we need consensus to include an external link. And I don't see any consensus here not to include either xSpore or Sporewiki, and, looking at these two sites, they both look kinda link-able to me. So, are there any good reasons NOT to link to either of those two websites? Not notable enough? To me, xSpore doesn't look more notable than Sporewiki or vice versa, so either include both or remove both IMHO. --Conti| 02:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Bloody hell, we already discussed this. We need to have arguments made for inclusion, not exclusion. The arguement for SporeWiki was already made and that was this: it's an openly editable wiki. That's it. It's typical for Wikipedia to link to other wikis, and again this was all stated before. We also discussed why we did not include the other fansites: they're non-notable and don't contain their own content. xSpore falls within this criteria. If we were to include xSpore right now, based solely on the arguments at hand, I would have to readd Planet Spore, and an umpteenth number of other spore fansites. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Just to chime in here... but if that's the case then xSpore should be included because they also have a wiki... please make up your mind. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.85.87.196 (talkcontribs)
Terrific, but this was also previously discussed. xSpore's wiki is sparse on information, besides a few things copied verbatim from the official Spore website. There's no reason to pick two links based on the wiki criteria, especially when one is pretty lacking compared to the other. xSpore.com's emphasis clearly isn't on the wiki. If they improve that, I'd be willing suggest replacing the SporeWiki.com link with a link direct to xSpore's wiki, but that hasn't happened. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 05:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Well maybe you should consider not contradicting yourself before making discussion. Should you continue, we will be more than happy to continue adding our links back. When both sites are treated fairly, then things will be alright. Until then, we will continue with our said actions. And as for the action against our IP addresses, go right ahead as we have access to thousands of ip addresses to make edits from, thank you. So treat all sites fairly and don't contradict yourselves otherwise you will be facing a lot of heat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiStylee (talkcontribs)
Check the SporeWiki section above. An argument for sporewiki's inclusion was made, and there was not one dissenting nuetral wikipedia editor. Therefore, consensus was made on the issue. There has been nothing even close to consensus on the issue of xspore.com's inclusion. You have also completly disregarded wikipedia procedure in removing already agreed upon links and have failed to give edit summaries saying so. You disregard ANY concept of nuetrality and of consensus and you are damaging wikipedia by doing so. Sporewiki has been argued for, and agreed upon, THEN it was re-added in after being removed. xSpore was argued for, but also argued against, there has been no agreement and so there should be no inclusion as of yet. Threats are not taken lightly here and you clearly have no idea how wikipedia works. This is not a link repository and you can not bully people into taking your point of view. There is procedure to this kind of thing. Every other site has followed such procedure (as can be seen if you actually read the other sections) and has been included or excluded. xSpore has failed to do so because of your flagrant actions against fair deliberation. Chris M. 20:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I still don't see anything horrible in linking to xSpore, but your behaviour isn't helping at all here. If you continue to insert the link against consensus, it will get removed and you will be blocked, so please don't do that. --Conti| 21:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not that there is something horrible in linking there, just that other links have been removed (and some kept) by discussion and general consensus and so all sites listed should face the same criteria. I think that's fair. Chris M. 22:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is -- it has not been agreed upon (there are several neutral people I've seen on here who support this) to include SporeWiki or Xspore. Both sites are clearly up in the air. Furthermore Crustacean, everything you're stating is either simply wrong or biased. It's pretty clear you're not neutral here. Now I understand the whole competitive edit thing -- I'm not sure who's doing that but the place we're at has a ton of people walking in and out all the time (Lan Center). While I've made some edits myself to re-add our link as well as SporeWiki's (and removed SporeWiki's after ours had been removed), I am simply protecting our site. While our wiki might not have as much content as SporeWiki's -- our site as a whole has more information and offers things they don't. At this point I don't really care if you include us or not frankly, but let it be known that you're being extremely biased and contradictory with your statements. You say you included SporeWiki because they are a wiki and wikipedia links to other wiki's -- so what? We have a wiki that's just as active and the site as a whole has just as much information. Secondly, you say that an "agreement" has been reached to include sporewiki. BULL. You know that's false. An agreement has not been reached on whom to include so you're just simply lying through your teeth. Again, you're biased.
I love you too. <3. In any case, the SporeWiki section above this xSpore.com section has little (that is to say, no) dissent. Where you go on about what xSpore has to deliver that SporeWiki does not, I can only respond in saying that I've already said what I'm about to say (hehe): SporeWiki is a wiki. As for your Wiki being more active: it is no where close in bredth or quality of information to that of SporeWiki, since xSpore's priority appears to be on the other sections on the site. Having just checked it, it also appears far less active, and has fewer active users. Like I said, if your Wiki ever overtakes SporeWiki, or SporeWiki begins to display annoying ads (anything animated, popping up, talking, etc.), then I would support switching the "Wikilink" to xSpore or another wiki. My only bias is that I prefer to keep self-promotion and advertising in the Wikipedia to a minimum, as with allowing all fansites an equal opportunity (xSpore is not above planetspore.com, sporemonsters, and all the other sites that have been discussed and removed from the external links). -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, I could care less if your edit from this IP was in "protecting your site". It was in bad faith. You altered the link from SporeWiki to point to your own website, which is both competitive and self-promoting. Not nice, and not in compliance with Wikipedia policies. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 05:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

As well as WikiStylee, an editor that has admitted direct involvement with xSpore (or is the owner of said site) has just made an edit removing Spore Wiki. This is clearly a biased, competitive edit. Discuss the websites like everyone else. If you want to raise an issue with Spore Wiki, you can do so, but various neutral editors have supported its inclusion. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm a neutral editor, one of several who support the inclusion of SporeWiki and the exclusion of xSpore (and it's Wiki). I'm going to be absolutely direct with you and be more agressive than I would normally be because you don't seem to respond to the polite way it's been put before. xSporeWiki is inferior to SporeWiki, and vastly so. xSpore itself is just another fansite comparable to several others named. You say Consumed Crustacean is biased, but the only bias I see is yours for xSpore. Your lame excuse that you are using a LAN center computer doesn't float - I mean so many people are just flooding to the speculative article on one upcomming and still (relatively) unknown videogame on Wiki that obviously it wasn't you but rather "someone else" that was vandalizing the site by making competitive edits. Hey look, I can see my own brain my eyes have roilled so far back into my head. As for debate about SporeWiki, have a look up the page - yes, scroll the mouse up, and look at the discussion on this very page under the sub-heading (oddly enough) "SporeWiki.com". Please not the support that the link has for inclusion. I know you can read because you have been reading everything else we've had to say here. But incase you don't bother to go and look, 6 different editors managed to agree on it's inclusion (that is, we decided to have it IN the article) and the only time the word oppose appears is when the editor has chosen to say (and I quote) "I oppose removing SporeWiki's link as it's a highly relevant community. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)". Wow, sure seems like that issue was settled quite some time ago. Shame you have to come along and start pushing what is a decent link to bring some traffic to your otherwise run-of-the-mill/inferior site. Now stop vandalising the article, cool off, and go do something else for a while. Robovski 14:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Umm, what in the world is the purpose for linking to *another* wiki site? This wiki site (the central wikipedia page) is editable by people too, am I not correct? So why would you link to sporewiki.com? Also, I think it's perfectly fine if at least one fan site is added. Based on all of the current fan sites out there that I've seen (20 or more), xSpore.com clearly blows them away. Especially since they have nearly all of the videos available for both downloading and streaming. xSpore.com is also only 2 months old (whois.sc) and they have 281 members, and their forum activity pretty much supports that. I personally run a few forums and depending on the specifics / topic of the sites, some have 700 members and aren't as active as xSpore. I'm also an SEO'er and xSpore.com ranks higher than any other fan site for most of the spore related keywords and has a lot of well established sites linking to them in a 1-way fashion. This site was clearly developed by people who know what they're doing. If there is any "official unofficial" spore fan site out there, this is the one, and this is the one you should link. And as a fan of the game who was looking for information regarding Spore, I would much rather visit a site like xSpore.com than SporeWiki.com on any day of the week. This Wikipedia page covers the whole wiki ground of spore, so it's a rather redundant link. Sporewiki.com should be removed and xSpore.com should be added, bottom line. The only reason I think SporeWiki.com is even up, is because the owner probably contributes a lot to this wiki page and has ties with those who control this wiki. Sad. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.164.111.96 (talkcontribs) .

Do we have anyone netural that has positive points for xSpore? You can't call xSpore the "official unofficial spore website". It has 250 members. That's peanuts. Its forum is not "active", especially in comparison to Gaming Steve's (which is a pretty undisputed link). The reasons for inclusion of Wikis has already been stated, and it's used in several other Wikipedia articles. Do you want to also argue linking to the Battlestar Galactica Wiki? Or the Memory Alpha Star Trek wiki? These are also useful because Wikipedia's primary purpose is to serve as a general encyclopedia - not to focus on providing information on a specific topic. Linking to another wiki helps give people a place with a similiar atmosphere to the Wikipedia, but that has a focus on the topic they're interested in and helps keep fancruft out of this wiki. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay let me ask you this then, if the Wikipedia is supposed to be a "general encyclopedia", then why would you intentionally not include entire sites with fans (hence fan sites) that are dedicated to the specific topic at hand (Spore)? It only seems relevent to me. Why not at least designate a page that links to all of the fan sites then? And just beacuse SporeWiki.com is setup as a Wiki doesn't seem to me that it automatically doesn't become a fan site. SporeWiki.com was created by a fan of the game, from which he even has stated in his profile that he *may* introduce ads when the game becomes popular. Also, "Do we have any netural that has positive points for xSpore?" Yes, me. And having read through all of this there have been others as well. If you won't link *other* fan sites (sporewiki is a fan site in my unbiased book), then create a page linked from the main spore info page that links to all fan sites (sporewiki.com included, and removed from the main page external links section). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.164.111.96 (talkcontribs) .

By your earlier description of the xSpore site, I would not gauge you to be neutral. In any case, you're skirting over all the previous discussions we've had, and I recommend you read back on the whole of the talk page before continuing to make the same arguments. The Wikipedia is not a web directory. Linking to every fan site is undesirable. Therefore, we have to pick and choose which ones have a specific relevance and importance to the topic at hand. As per the next part of what you were going on about: SporeWiki.com is obviously a fansite. However, it's also a wiki. Being a wiki gives it relevance enough to become an external link. This is based on precident from the Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, and other articles. I already stated the reasons why this is, but you've conveniently ignored them. If SporeWiki does introduce ads, we can discuss and nix it. In any case, all you've been discussing so far is why SporeWiki should not be included, which is probably best saved for the section a few above this titled SporeWiki.com. This discussion is about xSpore.com, and you've yet to give any decent points as to why xSpore should be included. It sounds like there's some stupid competition going on between the two sites as to which gets an external link and why the other doesn't deserve one. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I consider that whilst there is a larger wiki with more original content and features, there is no real need for the xSpore wiki to be considered. Having said that, if someone can justify it I for one would not be opposed to its inclusion. I just haven't seen anything on xSpore that can't be found elsewhere. --163.1.136.55 11:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

To quote him, Muchness said this on the external links page talk. Chris M. 15:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
The current state of the article's external links section looks fine to me: it has the official site, a forum that's notable within the Spore community, and a fan wiki included per talk page consensus. Further fansites (e.g., xSpore) should not be added without prior consensus on the talk page to add them. --Muchness 01:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to note...apparantly xspore is running ads on it's site for some reason, and their wiki isn't even under GFDL. Chris M. 03:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not affiliated with any of the various sites--don't have the time or the inclination--but would really like to see xspore linked to. Their media player had/has a number of content-loaded videos I had a lot of difficulty finding anywhere else. Perhaps that was because they were new and some of the other sites now have them, but that would be a greater mark in its favor--having them earlier than others. Having some of the best videos all in one place would be very informative to someone just finding out about the game as they might through wikipedia's article. N Vale 02:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

GamingSteve has a list of all the latest videos here. Most sites have a lot, if not all the videos and many had them before xSpore. --163.1.137.58 10:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

And reproduced in a slightly dirty fashion on sporewiki through permission of the original gamingsteve poster (who put these up as soon as they were released. Chris M. 03:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
You can also get a lot of the videos on You Tube. Just do a search for Spore and you get a good dozen vids right away. Robovski 00:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Action against IP 65.189.214.222[edit]

Can I call for action against the IP User:65.189.214.222? His only contributions to the spore page were removing sporewiki's link 3 times and adding xspores. Those were near his only contributions on wikipedia in general. He posted once on the talk and while it was a fair post, it by no means resulted in any such consensus as his actions would suggest. He clearly isn't listening or discussing before taking action and has removed a link that consensus has agreed should be added and he has been told that. Shouldn't there be some kind of action to stop this kind of thing? Chris M. 15:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Action against User:WikiStylee[edit]

For this edit threatening to violate WP:POINT, User:WikiStylee has been blocked 1 month from editing Wikipedia. RadioKirk talk to me 21:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Semi Protection[edit]

The constant link-changing back and forth is really a waste of time for a lot of people. Is there no way to block the page from edits by "non-trusted" (not in an administered list) editors? Or at least non-registered users (IPs)? Or, if none of those options are available, request an administrator to lock it from everybody for a while to let things cool down. In any case, the current behavior is detrimental to this article.

-- Andreas Blixt 22:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, this is what I mean: Template:sprotected
-- Andreas Blixt 22:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Semi-Protection is useful sometimes, if it's been left on for a very short period. See Pro-Test for an example of where it helped prevent vandalism. However, is it really appropriate here? We can simply revert changes. Only when the vandalism is exceptionally frequent is there any real need for semi-protection in my opinion. --163.1.136.97 00:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC) (Oh - and to clarify - the IP addresses in the range 163.1.136.xx are all me, as my laptop is broken and therefore I can't use my usual IP address.)
Is it possible or reasonable to put a ban on all links to fansites? --24.145.160.174 00:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. That last message was mine but I didn't know I wasn't logged in --Ryuukuro 00:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I think this is an opportunity to let things cool down for a bit and to get on with the work at hand. The article itself needs a lot of work, and while a lot of material has been added since E3, I think some of it doesn't really belong in the article here (more suited to SporeWiki) or isn't well written. I think in a month or two things will be calmer and some of the buzz will have died down and we won't have the dozen plus attempts to add a fansite onto the article every day. Additionally, we recently had our first blanking, and there has been some other bits of vandalism. It's hard to say how long we should have this 'protected state' but I'm certainly for it for now. Robovski 01:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

GamingSteve.com and Will Wright/The Spore Dev Team[edit]

I've seen a post by Will wright on the gamingsteve forum confirming that they read those forums, but I'm not going to bother looking for a source because I don't think it really has a place here. After all, will checks out sporewiki also but that's harder to actually verify even with an email image. But it's still not worth mentioning on the articlespace because they check out a lot of communities and it doesn't make the community any better just because of that, as the removed point appears to imply.

On another note, that email I received from will was actual confirmation of an early editor release, but I don't believe it is solid enough to put in this article yet, am I right? Chris M. 14:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, you're right. Personal communications are uncitable because the reader can't ever get a hold of the source, so they're not admissible in articles. They're interesting off the record, though. — Saxifrage 16:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Personal research isn't allowed for a source. To be sure I find it very interesting, and I wish it was a published source so we could include it, but we can't. Doesn't mean you can't spill the beans here though *wink* Also on your original point about read by Maxis, it's not really relevant to the article.Robovski 22:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure, let me get a link to the image...[2] and to the thread that discussed it on gamingsteve [3], on page 3 Spore_Will posts. This is actually will wright (as was later proven by the site owner, gamingsteve), and he said...
I wonder if he'd agree to us reaching consensus on a few (<5) questions that matter most to us/thearticle at this stage. --Kickstart70-T-C 15:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Contest External Link[edit]

For the "Win a free copy of Spore here" link: We will remove this when the contest is over, please allow it to stay. This will be something spore fans would like to stumble across. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.29.216.200 (talkcontribs) .

We can't allow the link to remain. Wikipedia is not for advertising of any kind, even kinds that we might like. (See our policy, appropriately called What Wikipedia is not.) The link cannot stay and will be removed. I hope you will respect this and not re-add it. — Saxifrage 16:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sporeum.com[edit]

I see the fansite I added was removed. Sorry about adding it, I didn't see the notice until it was too late and decided to just leave it. Here was the fansite I supplied:

Sporeum - A Spore news source and forum by the creators of Simtropolis, a Sim City 4 fansite.

It's a great site, with a large community. It seems quite up on the latest news and has good features (such as "Splogs") for when the game actually releases. If this site is approved, I'll add it again or someone can do it for me.

69.11.23.13 07:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

While your site is much better then some of the other sites that tried to muscle in their links several months ago with only 532 forum members I don't think at the time it'd be very suitable to be linked from the Spore article. TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 10:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you're putting quantity over quality here. You said yourself it's better than other sites that tried to get on here, and yet you dismiss it because of the low member count. I find it odd that GamingSteve's forum got accepted, considering there really is no site to speak of. (Also, it's not my site. I'm just a member of the community) 69.11.23.13 20:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, GamingSteve is there because all early news about Spore was broken by Steve.
The thing about fansites is that Wikipedia:External links says to have one fansite, and we already have two. GamingSteve is there for an exceptional reason, and it's complemented by the very good SporeWiki. There would have to be a very convincing reason to switch to some new fansite. There has to be more reason than "this fansite exists and isn't bad", at least. — Saxifrage 21:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I can see what you mean. I still believe that people who take the time to look up a video game on Wikipedia over a dedicated gaming website do so in order to get every last bit of information in one place, including any and all applicable external links.
But I guess the Wikipedia standard is to have as few fansites as possible, and I respect that. — 69.11.23.13 21:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
In general, the standard is to have as few external links as possible. In order to be successful at what it does Wikipedia has had to define what it's not, and a search-engine replacement and links directory are two things that it's been decided would get in the way of being a good encyclopedia.
On that note, though, a wiki that does try to have all information possible on Spore is SporeWiki itself. They have articles and links to every fansite known, but I don't see one for Sporeum yet. They'd probably be very happy to see an article created on it with a link to the site. — Saxifrage 22:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Sporeum added on SporeWiki, it has it's own page, a reviews page, and I also added it to the links and affiliates page. Chris M. 02:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

HookedonSpore.com[edit]

Would you consider Hookedonspore.com? Their USP is that, by participating in the forums, you can collect all sorts of items found in the game (Planets, Creatures, Vehicles, Microbe's etc.). It also is kept rigidly clean of spammers. As a result, the forum is far more active than the other forums (with the possible exception of Sporeum.com, which is also very active). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.173.56.130 (talkcontribs)

Gamingsteve has an even bigger forum ( 73,170 Posts vs 10,000ish) which contains much more relevant posts (around 40% of those 10,000 posts have nothing to do with Spore based on the category they're in) and I'm not sure whether or not the item system (I assume like a gallery of virtual items with a simple post to win system, which isn't very unique) would count as a unique feature making it distinct from other Spore fansites. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 23:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

xSpore.com[edit]

I see xSpore is back in the fansite list. Previous consensus was that this didn't warrant inclusion. I haven't simply removed the link again as I'm willing to see what general opinion is at now on the inclusion of other fansites. My opinion is basically unchanged - xSpore isn't a bad site. That said, it isn't as busy as GamingSteve, and I don't want this to become a link depository. Robovski 23:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

xSpore offers nothing useful that and the ones already linked don't already provide as far as I know. Unless it offers a unique and useful service or is particularly notable (which I don't think it is) I don't think it needs to be linked to. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 00:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's a day later, I'm going to remove it. If anyone thinks they have a good reason to include it or some other link, please speak up here before putting it in the article. Robovski 22:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


Edit War[edit]

Lets be a bit calm going forward, everyone here has differing viewpoints, and it's important not to get into an edit war. (Again.)

I took the old version of the article's Wii information, which was better cited, and put it in under Console versions. Due to this section being removed previously, the "wiiwii" reference that was in the current Wii section was broken, and this fixes that as well.

I am not sure Console Versions fits as the DS -- yet alone a cellphone -- is not generally considered a "console" as much as a "handheld" (although this PoV is changing due to the DS's great commercial success). Perhaps "Other Versions" would be better?

As for the Port vs Spinoff debate, I am not sure. Although this is anticdotal evidence, most gamers I know of use the term "Port" to mean the full version of a game transposed to a different platform -- for example, moving Starcraft from the PC to the Nintendo 64, meaning that Starcraft 64 was a port. Spinoffs are generally considered to be inspired by the original game, and containing the same intellectual property, but not the same game -- For example, Assassin's Creed has a DS version, but it is not a port, it is a Spin-off, as the content in it changes dramatically. KiTA (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sillygostly just wants it HIS way because he "knows" he's right, and no amount of discussion will change that. "Other versions" is vague, and says nothing. Spinoff is the proper term, period. JAF1970 (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
PS. Mobile phone games are not considered handheld games any more than iPod games are. Both have severe memory limitations. Neither uses a traditional control scheme either (mobiles use a number keypad, iPods use a touch wheel.) JAF1970 (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
JAF, I do not mean to be rude, but I would ask you this -- how is Sillygostly's "[wanting] it HIS way because he "knows" he's right" any different than you repeatedly nuking any mentioning of the upcoming Wii version, or reverting the changes to the Wii version that include more information and references? We need to reach a consensus on this, reverting each other is NOT productive. KiTA (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
That was a mistake. Was just reverting to the version before the edits he made. Your version is fine. JAF1970 (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have reports that the edit war is still going on. As such, I have protected this page for three months. That's obviously too long for no edits to take place so I'm hoping any remaining issues can be resolved. Once a consensus is reached here, please let me or any other admin know so the page can be unprotected. Thanks! --Yamla (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Yamla. JAF1970 (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It is heartening to see the two of you (KiTa, JAF1970) immediately start working so well on resolving these disputes. I hope Sillygostly can participate as well. --Yamla (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with KiTA that the Spore DS/Mobile versions could be considered "ports", however since they are technically not direct ports of the PC game, it would make more sense to refer to Spore on other platforms as different "versions". Not even EA refers to other versions of the game as "spin-offs", so any talk of other versions of the game being "spin-offs" is unsubstantiated. I mean, what's Spore being spun-off from? Spore? All four games are being released simulatenously and have no linkage to any other video game (apart from the Sim series, given Will Wright's involvement), so there's no way that any of these games could have been spun-off. An example of a spin-off would be a game like MySims (a Japanese inspired game based on The Sims), or The Sims Carnival (puzzle games based on The Sims franchise).
I still don't think the DS/Mobile versions should be separated into their own articles. The content lacks notability and there's very little information to justify separate articles for these versions of the game. Even if more info becomes available, there is very little that would be relevant to the article given that Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for gameplay "tips". I am however in favour of a separate article dedicated to console versions of the game (DS/Mobile/Wii etc.), but given that most video game articles contain version-specific information within the single article (or a secondary "console" article), I don't see why Spore should be treated differently. A separate article for *every single* platform is unnecessary. Sillygostly (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
You don't think so, but others do. And those two articles are growing. You don't like them? Don't visit them. It's not even September yet (when the games are going to be released) and already you're making proclamations. What, is 6 months too long a wait?
It is also significant that 1. the Wii version may be Spore Creatures as well, and 2. Spore Creatures is being developed by another company. Furthermore, Spore Mobile is even more different and basically a Spore-themed flOw, not Spore. JAF1970 (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
This isn't about me "not liking them". The DS/Mobile articles contain very little information (only about 1-2 paragraphs of version-specific information apiece) which could easily be integrated into the main article. And the articles really can't expand much further in their current state given that Wikipedia is not a game guide (as any additional content regarding gameplay/reception would be limited). I am however in favour of a separate article for console versions of the game.
"May be Spore Creatures as well"? What you're saying is based purely on speculation and lacks credibility. I *know* that Spore Creatures is being developed by another company. The very same company developed the GBA/DS versions of The Sims Bustin' Out and The Urbz, however neither of those games were given separate articles despite being radically different from their home console counterparts. I have never denied that the various Spore games are different to one another, but it still doesn't justify giving them separate articles as any version-specific information could all be well contained within a single article as the products in question, rather than the games themselves share the same context (in terms of development/promotion etc). Sillygostly (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Now you're attacking my credibility? Dude, you're the one claiming no one is using the term spin-off. Furthermore, I'm not an idiot - you might notice my usage of the word may. However, it's more than likely, especially since the Wii lacks a hard drive. Please, don't insult my intelligence. JAF1970 (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't "attacking" you. I merely stated that your assumption that the Wii version will also be titled "Spore Creatures" is based purely on speculation. Besides, the DS is nowhere near as limited as the Wii version (so it could very well focus on more than one core aspect of the PC game), however that assumption too, is based on speculation. Furthermore, there are sources that refer to alternative versions of Spore as "ports"[4]. Different people will refer to other versions by a different term (be it "console version"/port/spin-off etc. regardless of whether or not the term is being used correctly). The term "version" is more suitable in this context as it is a more neutral/common term. Sillygostly (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Current Disputes[edit]

Here are the following current disputes with this article that need resolving. Please feel free to add any additional points of contention that may need changing.

Wii Version (Resolved)[edit]

Currently considered Resolved. The Wii version / port / spinoff / delicious cake / etc will stay in the other sections area, next to Spore Creatures and Spore Mobile, until more information can be gained about it.

May be resolved. JAF1970 believes that the publisher should release a press release before the Wii version is added to the article proper. KiTA believes that the information currently available merits inclusion. Current version -- with the Wii mentioned under the "Console Versions" section -- seems to be acceptable by both parties.

  • May be resolved, as the current version contains this information, in the Spinoff/Console/Ports/etc section.
  • It's resolved. It seems the Wii version will probably not be the same game as the main version - it's actually probably going to be Spore Creatures, which is another reason to keep that article intact. Incidentally, this is why I didn't allow the Wii version to be under platforms in the first place. It was probably that the Wii would not be able to handle the scope of the full game. For one, the Wii has no hard drive. JAF1970 (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I concur, the current version of the Wii mention seems acceptable, and it's highly likely that the "Spore Wii" version of the game will go out under the Spore Creatures title. Anyone else agree/disagree? KiTA (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the current mention of the Wii is fine. I just hope it doesn't get bloated with speculation and every mention of it in an interview. (Unless of course, substantial info is released about it.) Nanobri (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It's fine as is. It satisfies the desire for some contributors to acknowledge explicitly a Wii version, but also keeps it off to the side til something definitive occurs. JAF1970 (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Lets call this one resolved unless someone else has an objection. KiTA (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Spore Creatures / Spore Mobile Merger (Resolved)[edit]

Ongoing. JAF1970 believes that these belong in secondary, external articles. Sillygostly believes that these should be merged into the main article, with redirects for the secondary articles.

  • Idea for resolution: What does official Wikipedia policy say about such sub-articles?
  • There's no need to do anything about it. Just added new information about Spore Creatures as it grows. Same will happen with Spore (mobile). And if the Wii version is indeed Spore Creatures... JAF1970 (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, all of my work in the last 18 months has been to keep Spore a candidate as a good article. Fattening it with all the stuff now in Spore Creatures and Spore (mobile) would ruin that - and lead to - guess what? - new article creation. The article AS IT IS is already pushing the "too long" article limit, and it's fat-free. So either have them as seperate articles NOW, or do it later. It's that simple. JAF1970 (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I oppose a merger. I think there is sufficent information already to warrant the articles being separate, and I think more information is likely to come out as well. Nanobri (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I also oppose a merger, whether or not those two articles need to be merged into a single article, however, will need to be discussed closer to release time on the appropriate pages! --Samtheboy (t/c) 20:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Why? Those articles are seperate and very different games. JAF1970 (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

RESOLVED (24 hours passed.) JAF1970 (talk) 06:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I think it's best if Sillygostly agrees before we consider this resolved. He's in an active discussion with you above about it. KiTA (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Er... even if Sillygostly votes for, it's 3 to 1 against. And there was 48 hours to respond. It's resolved. JAF1970 (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me make this easy: 1. You can't merge them with Spore. Look at the articles. You run with the old problem of Spore being way too big. Plus, they're completely different from Spore. 2. You can't merge THEM together. Same reason. 3. You can't remove them via AfD - they're too important. 4. There's rumbling that the Wii version of Spore will be a more advanced version of Spore Creatures (no hard drive on the Wii, after all), so you'll end up having a DS and Wii game that's its own spinoff genre from Spore. 5. Both games are already their own articles in the Video Game Wikiproject. I do things for a very good reason.

This issue is resolved - 36-48 hours of agreement. JAF1970 (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Purple Planet (Resolved)[edit]

Currently considered resolved. A small mention of the purple highlighter will remain, with the note that the significance of such is currently unknown. KiTA (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor dispute. Several previews have mentioned that the last thing you do as a terrestrial creature is spray a purple light all over your planet. The significance of this is unknown. This may be you adding your home planet to the Sporeopedia, the purple light may be a scanner of some kind?

  • Isn't it obvious? In order to leave your planet, you must prove that you have explored the entire planet. It's probably also part of a tutorial on how to use the UFO (movement, etc.) JAF1970 (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • KiTA: I vote to leave this out of the article for now, until more information can be gotten. Perhaps until post-release.
  • Um... why? Several HANDS-ON previews talk about this. This isn't something that's invented by some guy. (I understand the worrisomeness of speculation there...but ignoring it won't make it go away.) JAF1970 (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Because it is a gameplay feature, which we have little or no information on. Why purple? Why the whole planet? Why not just part of it? Is this a "debug thing" that's only there because the real gameplay feature it's simulating doesn't exist yet? It belongs in a gameplay section for the end of the civilization phase / start of the space phase, but we don't really have enough information to go on yet. KiTA (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Wright and the previews already stated it's a part of the game. It's not a debug, it's a part of gameplay. JAF1970 (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Hm, good point, but there's precious little info on that part, and it might be too specific until more detailed gameplay information is available (i.e., a Demo, a complete playthrough video, etc). KiTA (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I vote leave it out as well. It's not like painting a planet purple is a feature anyone cares about in and of itself (unlike flying creatures, or underwater civilizations). If new information comes out that better explains the reason for it, then maybe it should be included then, but not now. Nanobri (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Whoa, whoa... hold on a second. You can't say people don't care about this information. A lot do. It's a part of gameplay - heck, it's more than just a part. Did you read the previews?: you can't enter the space phase without doing it. It's an actual condition towards moving towards the space phase. JAF1970 (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, but we do not know much about it yet... I'd like to see more information, perhaps it in a demo to the press, or Will mentioning how it works, before it gets more than a passing mention. I mean, we know you highlight the planet purple, but why? Is it for the Sporeopedia? Is it some form of defensive measure? Etc, etc. KiTA (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Problem is, it's a condition to reaching the space phase - so by definition, it has to be mentioned. If it weren't a critical condition in the game, we could ignore it. But it is, so we can't. JAF1970 (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps mentioning it, but mentioning it with the caveat of "The current use of this purple color is unknown"... which is remarkably similar to what we already have. Huh. KiTA (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Or just say the player must paint the planet purple before moving on to the space phase, period. JAF1970 (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the planet doesn't remain purple. (chuckle) JAF1970 (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: mention the planet being painted, but add, ", the purpose of this is as of yet speculative." until harder evidence is made known. JAF1970 (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Terminology: Ports vs Spin-Offs vs "Console Versions" (Resolved)[edit]

We should review Porting vs Spin-off_(media) and decide what better fits.

  • It's obvious. There's no porting going on with Spore mobile and Spore Creatures. They're being built from the ground up. No one took code from Spore to create those games. They're SPINOFFS. And by the way, Spinoff is not a development design - it's an intellectual property design. Like The Facts of Life are a spinoff of Diff'rent Strokes - same characters in each, but a different show. JAF1970 (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I like "spin-off" better than "port", but I think both of them have the connotation of an established existing game being the source. Spin-off fits better in the sense that it implies that the new version is drasticly different from the original version. Unless something better is proposed (i.e. a term that doesn't imply an established game as the source), then I say we call them spin-offs. Nanobri (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Port is completely inaccurate. The Mac OS X version of Spore is a port. Spore Creatures and Spore Mobile are not. JAF1970 (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I propose "Other Versions", which is neutral about the whole affair. KiTA (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Except that's vague, uninformative and looks really bad. When you say "other versions", it could mean anything. "Spinoff" is more direct, and also a single-word description. JAF1970 (talk)
EA (nor anybody else apart from JAF) has referring to alternative versions of the same as spin-offs. I propose that we refer to them as different versions. And I have no problem with a separate article for all non-PC/Mac versions of the game, however, creating separate articles for EVERY single version of the game is unnecessary. Sillygostly (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Do they need to refer to it as a spinoff? Used to be you'd get fired from a daytime drama if you called it a soap. No one from the network ever said The Facts of Life was a spinoff. Doesn't mean they aren't. PS. You're wrong. JAF1970 (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

More spin-off references:

(Tons more references to them being a spin off not posted.) Are you satisfied? They're spin-offs. JAF1970 (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, I think right now it is between spin-offs and other versions. I think all the arguments for both have been put out on the table, so I say we bring it to a vote and resolve this issue.
  • I vote spin off based on the evidence JAF1970 provided that people are calling it that, and also based on the the fact that I think the definition matches closely. Even though the main version is not an established game in the sense that it has been released, it IS an established game in the sense that the idea and development had been laid down and the other versions are off-shoots from it (thus spin-off is an appropriate term). Nanobri (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, "other version of Spore" is technically incorrect. These games are not Spore. Incidentally, the Wii version will be a spinoff. If they're drafting all-new plans for that version, by definition, it's a spin-off. JAF1970 (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think a mixture of spin off, version and game would be best, to repeatedly say "spin off" in an article is unimaginative and boring and therefore a mixture of vocab would be best. --Samtheboy (t/c) 06:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "Mixture"? Mixing right and wrong terminology doesn't help. And the word "spin-off" is only being used a few times. It's fine. JAF1970 (talk) 07:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • All the three words I used were actually correct terminology JAF, Spore Creatures is a Game, it is a Spin-off, and it is a Version (just like how there are different versions of the films Psycho, Halloween et al, they all are very different but are based on the same starting point). Spore Creatures and Spore Mobile are versions of Spore, insofar as they are all created from the idea of Spore but in different ways and manners! I'm happy that we use Spin-off however, just so long as the word isn't over-used and thus becomes unimaginative! --Samtheboy (t/c) 21:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Except EA, the media, and fans are all calling them "spinoffs". That's pretty definitive. JAF1970 (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved (spin-off) (24 hour timer) JAF1970 (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I would like to get more opinions on this first, before calling it resolved. It seems to be a real point of contention in the industry. What constitutes a port? How different does something have to be to be a spinoff? Etc Etc. Are there any "official" regulated definitions of them? Does the ESRB have a stance on the matter? What about the ol' Dictionary? KiTA (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    • In the industry? No. Here? Yes. The industry calls spinoffs spin-offs, or didn't you notice the EA VP Mark Buechner calling Spore Mobile a spin-off. If EA is calling these games spin-offs, they're spin-offs. The industry developers and publishers are calling them spin-offs. The fan forums are calling them spin-offs. The publications are calling them spin-offs. Why can't you? JAF1970 (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I completely agree here that these games are most definitely NOT ports. For starters, they are not even using the same graphics engines, therefore they can't even start to be considered ports! --Samtheboy (t/c) 21:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't know much about Spore when I wrote that, but you're right; Spore Creatures is more of a spinoff Emma Hordika (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Emma Hordika —Preceding unsigned comment added by JAF1970 (talkcontribs)

Resolved (36 hours passed). JAF1970 (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Please feel free to make any changes or edits to this list. KiTA (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed "spinoffs" to "versions" before looking at the discussion page, simply because upon reading the article, "spinoff" just didn't seem appropriate. See Spin-off (media)#In video games. Spinoff typically refers to something, made later, that takes an element of the original product and expands upon it by adding new original content to it. Angel is a spinoff of Buffy, retaining the characters Angel, Cordelia, and Wesley, and the general setting of the Buffyverse, and adding several new characters, a new setting (L.A.), and a largely unrelated plot. The Sims could be considered a spinoff of Simcity, but The Sims 2 (console game) is not a spinoff of The Sims 2. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 20:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Spinoff is entirely appropriate, since Electronic Arts uses the term, the media uses the term, and even fansites use the term. A spinoff is exactly what those are, since they're based on the game. And I'll restate - if EA (Buechner, et al) calls them spinoffs, they're spinoffs. (See quotes above as evidence. And there's more where that came from.)
And these are spinoffs by your definition - they retain aspects of the main game (Spore Creatures the creature phase, and much of the mechanics, such as the Creature Editor), and Spore Mobile retains the tide pool phase as well as the Creature editor. They're all using the Spore licensed brand name as well. To say they're "versions" of Spore is inaccurate because that implies they have the same structure, and that isn't true. Would you say The Facts of Life are a "version" of Diff'rent Strokes, or Mork and Mindy is a "version" of Happy Days? JAF1970 (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't agree with the "my definition" statement, as while they do retain aspects of the main game, they don't (to my knowledge) expand upon those aspects with new elements. I don't doubt that EA calls them spinoffs, but I do doubt that EA uses the term spinoff correctly, and by Wikipedia policy, if EA calls them spinoffs, they're spinoffs if EA calls them spinoffs, EA calls them spinoffs. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 21:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
And the press. And the fans. It's an accurate description. And by the way, if the publisher states they're spinoffs, and they own the frickin' license, who are you to contradict them? Love that ego! JAF1970 (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
For starters, I'm not the first person here to disagree with the term "spinoff." Would you call the console version of The Sims 2 a spinoff of the PC version? Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 21:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Some more for you.

JAF1970 (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"they don't (to my knowledge) expand upon those aspects with new elements." They don't? Didn't read either article, did you?

Sounds an awful lot like expansion to the Creature phase, huh? As for Spore (mobile):

Oh, and an FYI - both games feature direct multiplayer. Spore does not. I'd say adding multiplayer to a single player game is an expansion, wouldn't you?

They're spinoffs. By my, your, EA's AND Wikipedia's definition. (rolling eyes) Please, move on. JAF1970 (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)