Talk:Mana Bar

The mana bar logo is full of jpeg artefacts. can someone get a quality PNG vector image off Yug? Kommando (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested.

I contest the deletion of this article due to it's scope extending outside commercial interests. The Mana Bar is intertwined with the Australian gaming industry and media due to it's involvement in political and social issues, both of which are worthy of encyclopaedic documentation. McRed (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the speedy notice. - Zero1328 _Talk? 22:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey the Mana Bar is basically inviting people to spam wikipedia on their facebook page; no one made a Mana Bar page on their own, they did it because the owners asked their friends. I could post a facebook message asking people to write me a page on me and my youtubes but it wouldn't mean I was politically relevant. Like the statement made in response the link between alcohol, gaming, and violent incidents- the Mana Bar stating that no violent events have taken place in their 2-month history doesn't mean that they're a politically relevant example of gamer culture, it's a publicity stunt and shouldn't be on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.35.122.169 (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of the Facebook post. It doesn't automatically make it a publicity stunt, and I had given them caution, regarding that. - Zero1328 _Talk? 23:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Also this has been on the to-write list for myself for a few weeks now, the uniqueness of the venue in the Australian nightclub/gaming scene makes it notable for the purposes of Wikipedia.TheNeutroniumAlchemist (talk) 03:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't re-add that speedy notice. Or {{hangon}}. It is indeed notable, though it may need a bit of work. - Zero1328 _Talk? 06:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Just because they requested an article on Facebook (not a good reason to start an article) doesn't mean Mana Bar is not a notable topic (good reason to start article). It's to be expected that the page will be written largely by fans; who cares as long as they adhere to NPOV? You can write an article about yourself if you really want to - if you're within Wikipedia's guidelines it doesn't matter who does the actual editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Master gopher (talk • contribs) 07:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the deletion notice, let's get this page out of here. If The Manabar is noteworthy, every pub in Australia is noteworthy. It doesn't help that it's clearly the people who run the site and their close friends editing and encouraging others to edit the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.35.122.169 (talk) 00:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not about that. It's about whether an article has received reliable, significant coverage - which it has. The circumstances of the creation are irrelevant if the article can pass Wikipedia's criteria anyways. --Teancum (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey I just have to say that Orphan notice at the top is hilarious. Of course no other articles link to this one, it's a vanity article put up by nerds and defended only because people on wikipedia think that every anime and videogame is worthy of several megabytes of text. Are we supposed to make an article, "List of boring pubs in Australia" so we can make sure more pages link to this topic? Maybe in every videogame article we could put, "Like gaming? Then you'll love the [Mana Bar], the hip place to drink an Ocarina of Lime with your sweaty girlfriend!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.35.122.169 (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The Orphan notice is incorrect; the page Ben Croshaw links to this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.231.172.75 (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"First ever Australian venue allowing patrons to both consume alcohol and play video games"

Even if you discount all of those pubs and clubs which have had games machines since the old Pong and Space Invaders days, there is still the matter of other clubs based around this concept which have been around for many years. Barcode at Crown Casino, Melbourne, is the one that comes immediately to mind, although there are probably others, and I have a feeling that Barcode wasn't the first, either. I am removing this text from the article since the more carefully-worded citation intended to support it actually asserts that this is the first Australian club to serve alcohol and allow play on (home) "video game systems", which is already stated earlier in the article. -- Nezuji (talk) 03:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Notability

I'm going to query how notable this article is. I don't see how this was notable to start with and it has become less notable the longer this article has been around. Further, the last true update/edit to keep this article maintained was in 2012, all other maintenance regarding content has been non-existent. Matt Zero (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

There already was an AfD with consensus to "keep" and there are already plenty of GNG sources in the article. I don't see how this is not notable. Not having been edited recently has absolutely nothing to do with notability. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

My point was not purely in the context of the recent edits, but more the allusion to that nothing has happened in general over the past year regarding this article, not just in regards to wikipedia but in the wider world. But as you've raised some interesting points I feel I must add a bit more after analysing the article more stringently

In regards to GNG: there has not been significant coverage of the venue, all the sources are from 2010 during the opening promotion lifecycle of a venue (I picked one source at random from the list - http://uk.ign.com/articles/2010/01/11/australias-first-dedicated-videogame-bar-opening-february-2010 - and IMHO it was a promotion and more to the point the whole article feels like promotion when reading it) and finally I would say that the article could be included within one of the owners bio's, in this case Ben Croshaws, as he is the only real link to an article of interest. When considering AfD, this can be revisited, no one decision is final and AfD can be confirmed following a successful argument against AfD. At best, this article needs extensive work and cleaning, as it contains weasel words, promotion, sources are broken and only receives token gestures towards links in other articles which could be stripped out as they serve no other purpose to add to the articles in which they are contained other than to be a link back to this article...Matt Zero (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

To rephrase: not having recent sources has nothing to do with notability. It is either notable or not. Same with article quality. You can of course hold another AfD if you believe consensus was wrong. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I know what you said, that was repetition, not rephrasing. Would you mind covering the rest of my points as I have responded to yours please, specifically the GNG? Matt Zero (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems that notability has been established. It has been the main topic of discussion in a number of articles. Once established and demonstrated notability is permanent. It's not a large venue so there may not be a lot of recent coverage by third parties. Its tone could be improved and its already survived a previous deletion attempt. I am not sure what User:Soul phire is trying to achieve. - Shiftchange (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to point out that the article is flawed on multiple pretexts and I don't believe notability was established from independent wikiusers, having looked at the original AfD discussion (as I stated in my first post). It has been 3 years since the last AfD discussion and that would constitute enough time for another AfD to be brought to bear

Maybe I need to be less subtle in my points...Matt Zero (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have already answered all your points succinctly (I can't find anything I didn't address besides that random reference). If you just want to argue semantics, then I don't really have further interest. If you want to hold an AfD, I will leave my argument there. If you want to merge, I will leave my argument there. I have already said, in my opinion, this passes GNG with multiple, independent, reliable, in-depth sources[1][2][3][4][5]etc. and Brisbane venue [6][7][8]etc. and a lot of passing mentions and individual events like [9][10]etc. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I was only using semantics in return. I do not believe you have answered my points succinctly, if at all in some cases. I also do not believe that the sources are extensive, independent, reliable and especially not in depth. But I was not opening an AfD or a merge immediately as I wanted a discussion before a knee jerk reaction, which it seems I got anyway which I'm choosing to interpret as vested interest. Either way I'm not interested in edit wars, which is what this will become, as you feel so passionately about this articleMatt Zero (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

My comments carry nothing personal, no conflict of interest or investment, and I will never edit war or push my opinion against consensus. You are the one who disagreed with AfD, then with me, and now you outright insult and accuse me? I have answered with nothing but concrete points and you accuse me of "knee jerk reaction". I reply with nothing but guidelines in mind and you accuse me of personal interest. I even openly say you can have an AfD or merge discussion I'd participate in and you further accuse that I would edit war? I'm sorry, but this has turned into some kind of personal thing for you and it is best I step away having said everything I wanted on GNG. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You chose to be insulted there and the passion for which you have for the article is apparent in your wish to take things personally and your continued interest spanning from 2010 in particular the original AfD. I'll continue to dispute the 'concrete points' and I suggest you re-read your own language for condescension which can be insulting, even when assuming good faith Matt Zero (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110312015303/http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/committees/documents/lcarc/reports/Report%2074.pdf to http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/committees/documents/lcarc/reports/Report%2074.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100526003855/http://www.manabar.com.au/theteam.php to http://manabar.com.au/theteam.php

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

notability, redirect

Another notability complaint. Sure, a defunct Australian bar with a capicity of 50 people might have a place on wikipedia. Should it redirect from mana bar though? Most people searching Mana Bar will definitely not be looking for this. Iokerapid (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)