Talk:Habbo/Archive 5

Official Fansites

I fail to see how Official Fansites are not mentioned *at all* on this page, considering they are a huge aspect of the hotel and the community spirit, which is what Habbo is all about. I think a paragraph with a few links should be added to include Official Fansite information. Prince.fanofit 20:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Per policyguideline through consensus, they cannot be added. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC) (Corrected Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

WP:EL is not a WP:POLICY.--WaltCip 15:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Then why are they on the Runescape page? (Scroll down right to the bottom). Lannah 20:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

They are not ment to be there on the Runescape page. ~Spebi 06:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Fansites aqe the next biggest thing in habbo. Why aren't they mentioned in the article. If there was no fansites them most habbos would only here about new news through word of moth and then everyone adds there own comment to that then the resulting habbo get the wrong info. Fansites need to be added to this page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.180.126.233 (talk • contribs).

TOChidden

I added the {{TOChidden}} template to the article because I believed that the TOC created too much whitespace. It has been removed again, but this time before adding it back in again, I would like to hear some discussion about the pros and cons of the template and pros and cons of just the normal TOC and its whitespace. —Spebi 05:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a poor hack that should rarely be used. This article has about the same amount of whitespace next to the TOC as any other half-way decent article. If readers don't like this much whitespace here, they can easily just click hide. Unless an article has an enormous TOC (some articles have TOCs with 50 items), there's no reason to use it. Even then, I don't think it is a good idea. --- RockMFR 15:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the page should be deleted

I think that the Habbo Hotel page should be deleted because it is a chatroom IMHO. I might be wrong about thinking that the page should be deleted. TYTT, I don't know. Fiolexgirl44 22:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Go to WP:AFD and nominate it. SakotGrimshine 23:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The only valid reason that this article should even be considered to be deleted, is that it might not be notable. But as far as notability goes, it does not fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines for web content. Even though it is a chatroom, it is notable and it does comply with Wikipedia policies.

Before even thinking about nominating this article for deletion, please try to take note that some editors are trying to upgrade the article's status, possibly soon to GA or A class. You should also look at the previous nomination for deletion for this article; it was also nominated for the same reason. But there was not one single oppose, and that was back when the article was really failing.

Now after hearing what I have said, do you still believe this article should be nominated for deletion? –Sebi ~ 05:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think what it's lacking to upgrade to a GA or A class is discussion of habbo pranks (like closing the pool). Get that in and it'll be a good article. SakotGrimshine 07:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You still don't get it. The issue with the raids is that it is not verifiable. Content that is not verifiable, will definitely not bring the article grade up; more likely to bring it down again. –Sebi ~ 07:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Also, I am not intending to start the whole raids discussion again. Should you want to discuss the raids further, please use above thread. –Sebi ~ 08:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not really raids. It's every day activity. It's pretty much constant in the pool rooms. So it's not much more difficult to verify than a link to part of Habbo's own site--just takes a little time to load and make an account, but then it's a constant thing. SakotGrimshine 09:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(restarting block) But then who can verify that it is a "constant thing"? A few regular players is not enough verifiability to include in an encyclopedia article. –Sebi ~ 09:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the article is stuff that can only be verified by entering the hotel and looking around. On the USA website it really is constant. SakotGrimshine 19:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sakot: they really don't care. There are tons of articles on Wiki with unverifiable information, especially on thousands of unimportant articles such as this one. Some are marked as such, but many more aren't. The point is that there is a LOT of unverified info. No one cares, except these people because they don't want to let the raids "win" publicity for personal reasons, or because they work for habbo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.108.12.54 (talk • contribs).

Fair use rationale for Image:Habbo.png

Image:Habbo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge of Articles

I suggest that sections of this article remain here, however I believe that this article should remain strictly about Habbo Hotel and not about the Habbo website as they are two different things. Sure the Habbo website is intergated into the Hotel but they serve different purposes. I purpose that something such as the below be applied to the Habbo brand.

-- Kai ^talk 07:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC) -- Kai ^talk 09:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The redirect was improper as a move would be the proper path. But even that, I don't see a pressing reason. The entry is about Habbo Hotel, and any mention of Habbo, the web-site, is a side effect. Both sites are co-related. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I am opposing against your ridiculous merge. Habbo and its Hotel are two different things; however where you are wrong is that the Habbo website and other features are FOR the Hotel itself, and not completely different things. The Hotel's scope is not as large as RuneScape's, which you appear to be basing all of this on.

RuneScape spans much further than Habbo Hotel. Habbo Homes, Habbo Exchange, and Habbo Groups on the article at the moment only have about a paragraph of information, which is mostly unsourced. To have 3 different articles for them just so the article can have a template linking all these together is a extremely ridiculous and inappropriate idea.

Are you aware that recently Portal:Habbo was deleted for being an underpopulated portal? I believe that splitting the article up into separate articles will not help the article at all. As I said before, the span of Habbo Hotel is not as wide as RuneScape's, and therefore a template to link them all together is not needed.

I am interested to hear what your point of view on this issue is now, after reading what has been said. –Sebi ~ 05:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a "Game"

Games have objectives, Habbo Hotel doesn't. It's an open-ended chat client, Sampo Karjalainen even states so here.

"User's of Habbo refer to it as a game, but it order for it to be classified as a game, it needs objectives, which Habbo does not have. We consider it to be open-ended play." -(Something along the lines of)

In my opinion, it shouldn't be in the "game" WikiProjects nor should it be referred to as a "game" in the article, perhaps it could be referred to as an online community. So, obviously, "Habbos" shouldn't be referred to as "Players", but perhaps as "users".--Kai 08:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not go and change all the wording to "users" or removing it from the projects it is currently under the scope of until we reach a consensus here. Wikipedia is a community as well as an encyclopedia, and it succeeds because the community makes decides on what to put in the article, and not just one user going and changing everything in the article because his opinion is that Habbo Hotel is not a game. I do hope that you do succeed in yet another proposal, as your previous proposals for the article (e.g. merging and dispute of Habbo and Habbo Hotel) appear to have failed. –Sebi ~ 08:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It was merely a suggestion. I didn't say that I was going to change anything I'm just putting in out there... God, are you people afraid of change or something? --Kai 06:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Change it to users and change it to an online community. Theres really no question that it isn't a game. 69.136.162.114 19:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly. It's certain that Habbo Hotel doesn't fall into the WikiProject Video Games, it's hardly a video game. -- Kai ^talk 10:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Has a consensus been reached? A little more feedback would be appreciated. -- Kai ^talk 05:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. bornhj ^(talk) 16:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I asked if Habbo Hotel would be classed as a game or not, at WT:MMOG, and they say that if there is a reliable source that says the game is a game, the game is a game. If there is a reliable source that says that Habbo Hotel is not a game, then it it is not a game, and we won't display those banners on the side of this page. But I doubt that a lousy Google video would be classed as a "reliable source". Sebi _[talk] 22:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The video was just an example. But there is certainly no question that it's not a Video Game. -- Kai ^talk 05:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

REQUESTING (semi)PROTECTION

This is the night of the habbo raids for the various chans and other sites. This page should be protected in order to stop certain /b/tards from vandalising the page. Tar7arus 20:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

In general, we don't pre-emptively protect pages. However, if you do want to make a request for protection, you'll be wanting WP:RfP. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 20:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If they do start to raid, they'll only use IP addresses, and it will take four days for newly-registered accounts to be able to edit the article, because the page is already semi-protected. Sebi _[talk] 22:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Wait, wait wait. Why bother to protect the article eventhough there were NO RAIDS. According to the logic of this whole discussion raids never have happened or will happen. So what is up with this request? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 77.232.66.11 (talk • contribs).

Firstly, remember to sign your posts by adding ~~~~ to the end of your posts. This will expand to include the time and date of your post (UTC). As for the raids, most people here are not denying that the raids happened, but rather there are no reliable, verifiable sources for us to use to document the raids. YouTube/Google videos, Encyclopedia Dramatica, Wikichan and the like are not really reliable enough. If we had a BBC News article on Habbo Hotel, that mentioned the raids, we could use that, or if there was a mainstream review of the game/site/program, that mentioned the raids, we could use that too.

Regardless, the vandalism has not been heavy enough to warrant protection, I would say. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 19:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The protection was granted a while ago, and I don't believe that it should be lifted. The article is prone to vandalism, and always has been. Around this time is where the vandalism usually rises, because of the "raids". Sebi _[talk] 21:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahh yes, I see now. It has been protected since March. Sorry about that. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 21:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Habbo Hotel → Habbo — A merge is not necessary at this stage. However, on Sulake's website they do not refer to the Hotel directly, they refer to the Habbo brand. This article isn't entirely about Habbo Hotel. Sulake's plan is to devolp the Hotel into something greater than just a chat client, so this move is vital. If the requested move is approved, the article would have to be structed accordingly. -- Kai ^talk 05:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Strong Oppose – The article is about Habbo Hotel, it is not about the Habbo brand. It only contains information about the "Habbo brand" because there is not information about it to create a whole new "Habbo brand" article. Sebi _[talk] 06:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - pretty much per Spebi. This article is about Habbo Hotel, so it should be located at Habbo Hotel. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 10:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: The article isn't about all Habbo Hotel. All of Habbo_Hotel#Features, Habbo_Hotel#Habbo_Credits, Habbo_Hotel#Habbo_Club and Habbo_Hotel#Moderation_and_management aren't about Habbo Hotel specifically, they're integrated into the Hotel, but they aren't about the Hotel. The domain for the site, www.habbo.com, changed from www.habbohotel.com two years ago around about the same time Sulake started added hotel-integrated features onto the website, surely that should indicate something. It's rarely even referred to, by Sulake, the official homepage and user's as Habbo Hotel nowadays anyway. --58.165.186.199 12:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Who is to say that the article on Habbo Hotel can't have information about the Habbo brand? There's not enough to be included about the Habbo brand to have its own article. Sebi _[talk] 04:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose this isn't an article about the Habbo brand - if it was, the opening sentence wouldn't say "Habbo Hotel is a virtual community". It's specifically about the hotel, so it should be named "Habbo Hotel". If you want to write a separate article about the Habbo brand, I'm all for it. bornhj ^(talk) 16:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Note: I purpose that Inside the Hotel be renamed to Habbo Hotel, and that The Navigator and Furniture be put underneath the Habbo Hotel header. The article should be about the Habbo brand, not just the Hotel. Thus the above would allow for expansion on the Habbo brand and the website's features, not just the client's. --58.165.186.199 12:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:HotelliKultaKala.gif

That isn't the Hotelli Kultakala logo. See http://web.archive.org/web/20021002225912/www.habbohotel.fi/habbo/ and refer to the logo in the top right. -- Kai ^talk 01:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Made some minor edits

I have updated the release number, as a new version is now available on the Habbo Finland site. It would be nice if someone could go into the loader and get the full name of it from the the embed. I've also removed speakers from the input section, because firstly they're not an input device (they're an output device) and secondly they're not necessary to play the game.

--Timothyrogers 20:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)