Talk:GameFAQs/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Crab Juice Or Mountain Dew?

Anyone going to mention all that advertising that was on GameFAQs last week? It really demonstrates just how commercialized the site has become since CNet took over. - Mneko

What's there to mention? --Scottie theNerd 10:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a direct consequence of the sale to CNet, something which Veasey himself said he would never do ("it would destroy the soul of GameFAQs", I believe he said). It's not like there's never been advertising on GameFAQs before, but that was the most obnoxious and intrusive ad campaign to ever hit the site. It's worth mentioning in the Wiki entry. - Mneko

You're misquoting what he said. It wasn't that bad either, consdiering that you don't need to use the homepage anyway.--Toffile 03:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

First off, there has been a period where GameFAQs didn't have ads. Secondly, if it's so important and obtrusive, how come I've never noticed it? --Scottie theNerd 10:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

External Links?

Given that a dozen or so links were removed from the External Links section recently for not being official or whatever, should the two that were added today be kept? Fik 15:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Secondary FAQ isn't official, either. I personally think the Board 8 Wiki is the epitome of ridiculous gameboard cruft, but I do like WikiFAQs. I really don't know. - Hbdragon88 03:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Board 8 Wiki shouldn't be there, but the Secondary FAQ and WikiFAQs are certainly helpful links. They don't have to be "official" to be linked. --Scottie theNerd 09:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

StrategyWiki external link?

StrategyWiki is a wiki that has very similar goals to GameFAQs, with the addition of a few more--wiki format, markup, screenshots and other images, guides divided into chapters, single guides per game, multiple editors, GFDL, etc. All of Wikibooks' game guides are in fact being moved to StrategyWiki [1] since Jimbo doesn't want them there anymore, so StrategyWiki is getting some good visibility on Wikibooks. I am wondering if you would voice opposition to having StrategyWiki added as an external link here? Several game articles already link to their corresponding StrategyWiki guide. I'm going to go ahead and add the link here, but if it raises any concern as to relevancy let me know. --echelon ^talk 08:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm under the impression that the External Links should only be directly related to the article rather than advertising similar sites. Since we don't even have GameFAQs' sister site under external links (which is practically the same thing), I don't see why we should include a link to a site that has nothing to do with GameFAQs. --Scottie theNerd 09:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It smacks a bit of advertising. Would we put a link to pepsi in the external links on the Coca-Cola page? Hiding The wikipedian meme 18:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This is blatant advertising. I have killed it. 164.107.197.49 07:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC) (RockMFR)

Pornographic

Okay, who's the joker who vandalized the front page?

It happens, thanks for fixing it though! --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Different names are used for the webmaster.

Sometimes he is referred to as "Veasey" (real name) and sometimes "CJayC" (screen name). I think it would look a bit neater if one name was used consistently. 167.206.128.33 16:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I chose to use CJayC rather than Veasey. Changes made. 164.107.197.49 04:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC) (RockMFR)

Merge

Article is too short and provides no useful information. GameFAQs article provides a far more relevant and comprehensive guide to GameFAQs as well as CJayC's ownership. Seeing how as we don't know much about CJayC at all, I suggest we redirect this article to GameFAQs. --Scottie theNerd 05:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree, entirely. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. This article is about CJayC, not GameFAQs. I believe CJayC had worked on some other Internet projects in the past, not just GameFAQs. CJayC does not equal GameFAQs, and he deserves his own article, just like LUEshi. --Facto 06:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, merger proposals should be listed at the top of each page per the Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages guideline. --Facto 06:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that practically nothing is known about CJayC outside of GameFAQs, with the only claim to fame being his formation and administration of the site. Little else about Veasey is notable or verifiable as far as we can tell. If you can find out more about CJayC, then by all means we'll expand on this article. Conversely, LUEshi shouldn't get its own article IMHO, but as it now represents multiple communities spawned from GameFAQs, it has arguably earned its place. CJayC, on the other hand, is restricted to GameFAQs unless he's the head of some charity that we've never heard of. Additionally, compare eBaum's World founder Eric Baumann, who is far more notable than Veasey but doesn't get his own page due to his fame being solely to do with his site. --Scottie theNerd 08:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with merge. CJayC has no other known web projects, no public pics exist of him, and besides for random bits of private info like his address/number/whatever, nothing is known of his private life. 172.165.250.81 18:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC) (RockMFR)

Agree--Toffile 18:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Karma

Why was the karma section that I made deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.33.77.83 (talk • contribs).

Karma is already explained here. I didn't think we really needed it in two places. -- Steel 21:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

GameFAQs chat

I highly doubt if we can procure any reliable sources for this section. Better to remove it entirely. I would also like to get some sources for the GameFAX thing - Insder took down the GameFAQs Archive and it still istn'b ack up. Hbdragon88 04:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge of GameFAQs message boards

• The Administrative Staff section can be moved here no problem.
• Listing a million and one boards is unnecessary. Cut those lists out and just have one paragraph in this article on the different types of message board (Site, social, etc). A (short) paragraph on user levels and karma might be a good idea.
• Maybe give LUE a subsection to itself considering stuff like LUEshi is apparently notable enough to have its own article.
• I'm not entirely sure we need to go to town on Spinoff website either.

Assuming nobody has any major objections to this I'll get to work on it in a couple of days. -- Steel 11:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd personally wait slightly longer for the opinions of other users, before going to work on it. As for myself, I feel that merging of the two articles is not necessary.

-- Mik 22:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no real need to have separate articles for Gfaqs and the message boards. It's not as if the GameFAQs article is so long that it needs to be split. -- Steel 22:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Steel. Much of the GameFAQs message boards article contains unnecessary details, and GF already has its own Wikis (emphasise the plural) to cover that information. Currently, the article only serves as a hotbed of vandalism. --Scottie theNerd 01:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the merge proposal. The main site and the boards are big enough entities by themselves to warrant having two articles. Work on cleaning up the main article, not mashing them together for no reason. --- 164.107.252.198 01:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The boards are big, but they are not notable enough to warrant an independent article. The information contained in the message board article is essentially a list of minute details that can be summarised in one or two paragraphs in the main article. GameFAQs' message boards alone are not worthy of an article. --Scottie theNerd 08:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've created GameFAQs message boards/Temp so I can work on removing trivial details without anyone complaining. -- Steel 12:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

And it's done. That's what I think the message board article can be cut down to. Someone needs to go clear up some poor wording, mind. -- Steel 13:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --Scottie theNerd 13:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind my previous comment. The only way we'll get this to good article status is to get this stuff together properly. --- 164.107.252.198 03:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Merged. Does anyone think it's worth keeping that /Temp page? -- Steel 11:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You can probably get rid of it. I don't see a point in having it. --- RockMFR 17:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Where the hell is the information about user levels? That's one of the things people would look up wikipedia for most.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.239.132.100 (talk • contribs).

When we had a separate message boards article, I believe it was cut out because it was already included in GameFAQs' help files, and places like the Secondary Boards FAQ (in the external links) document the new levels. --- RockMFR 17:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Aye. A Wikipedia article is not meant to repeat what is already in the Help files. It's an informative page, not a reference page. The fact that people actually come to Wikipedia to check user levels is quite sad when they're easily accessible on the site. --Scottie theNerd 01:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Contest Section

I'm re-adding the contest section again. It is a large part of the site. Stop being a dick, steel. --- 164.107.252.198 14:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

m:Don't be a dick. At any rate, that section is needless trivia. I'd rather not get into a revert war over it, to be honest. -- Steel 15:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, if the contests are a large part of the site (which is debatable), it would be much better to write a paragraph on them, rather than just having those pointless lists which don't have any explanation and at present don't mean anything. We don't need to list the outcome of every contest any more than we need to list every message board. -- Steel 11:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

LUElinks

Yes, this site is going to be difficult to source. There is nothing publicly available on luelinks.net that tells anything about it, but luckily we have archive.org to help us get some old primary sources. The old registration page is exactly what is needed for the reference. --- 164.107.252.198 01:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

But what does it prove? It's just a reg page. It doesn't support the claim that LL is the most popular spinoff? Hbdragon88 02:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude, seriously, what claim are you talking about? "Most popular spinoff"? Don't see that in the revision.... Reverting again. --- 164.107.252.198 07:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. But there's a massive list of spinoffs that you could write down, it isn't fair to simply list LL and leave the others in the dust. Leave it at the GFH source code and keep the potential laundry list out. Hbdragon88 16:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

LL is notable. Your own personal websites are not. It's staying in, chum. --- 164.107.252.198 04:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

XD. Whatever. Someone else will just end up removing that long list of crap. --- 164.107.252.198 05:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Tell me how LL is any more notable than the toher sites I just listed. Paroxicity had an infamous "DB cracking" which got CJayC to state to never use the same password on GameFAQs and other spinoff sites. MediArchive spawned dozens of cheap spinoffs. The Outboards is the longest running spinoff, running for over four years. Hell, even LUE2 is more notable, as it reprsented the first attempt at making a LUE spinoff. Darkside Legion was a banned word ("darksidelegion") for nine months, the first banned spinoff. Hbdragon88 04:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

LL is more well-known and popular than any other spinoff EVER. While we are currently unable to actually cite this, it is still something the editors of this article know. Hence, it is included. --- 164.107.252.198 04:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If only the "editors of this article" know about it, that's not good enough for inclusion into Wikipedia. Never mind you completely ignore the reasons why other spinoffs have their own claims for notability. Hbdragon88 04:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going to try to be nice heh heh. There's no reason why we should exclude spinoffs just because we can't include all of them. This is an encyclopedia- frankly, there are very few spinoffs that even approach being notable enough for this article. LUElinks, GFH, whitefyre, mediaarchive, outboards... Right now, we have a good cite for GFH (Jeff Veasey himself talking about it is a citation goldmine). LUElinks is incredibly popular, still exists (lol no jokes ok), and we at least have evidence that it is indeed a GameFAQs spinoff (and a ref from archive.org). LL is the most successful spinoff, hands down. Yes, I know we have no "evidence" of this- hence why there are no claims in the article. But, as an editor of this article, I know that LL is notable. While it is not notable enough for its own article, it IS notable enough for a spinoff section in this article. There is no way it can be excluded, and we should work towards keeping it in and providing more information about it. If you want other spinoffs included, then actually attempt to explain why they are notable. Once we (editors) know why they are notable, we can work towards finding references and citations for them. I'm attempting to do this for LL- please try to do the same for the others. --- 164.107.252.198 23:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate source of information. Whatever we list has to have a reason why it's listed. We have links to every GF board (53,000 of them), but they're not included because they don't have any claim to notability. As for LL and sources in general, I don't think any reliable sources do exist. GFH is about the only one that Veasey has associated himself with. Anecdotally, personally, I agree that LL is very popular. But there aren't any reliable sources. Good Articles require good sources. If it's in doubt, throw it out. You say that it should be added because you can personally assert it, that you could turn out sources. I think everything should be left out until good sources can back it up. Hbdragon88 00:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Reliable sources: Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as there is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it, and where the material is ... relevant to the person's notability, or, if the material is self-published by a group or organisation, relevant to the notability of that group or organisation.... --- 164.107.252.198 18:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Relevent to its notability...what is cited now is just a fact and does not establish notability. Also, read below that, it says: subject to verification by other sources, which that fact has not been. It also cautions that In general, if a self-published source is reliable, then other reliable sources will cite it, until then, it should be avoided.. I'll report it for now as the "POV of the publisher". Hbdragon88 04:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

GA on hold

This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :

1. Well written? Pass

2. Factually accurate? Pass

3. Broad in coverage? Pass

4. Neutral point of view? Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images? Fail (please give a fair use rationale for Image:Gflogo222.GIF

Additional comments :

• I wonder if the Contests section is necessary or is notable enough, please enlighten me.

Lincher 21:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added a fair use rationale for that image. First time I've done so, so someone else might want to add their expertise on the matter. --- 164.107.252.198 01:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The contests are at the very least a popular topic of discussion. Not just on GameFAQs, but on other websites. Penny Arcade used to have a strip that was about the contest, though it's disappeared for reasons unknown. (The original newspost is here.)--Toffile 17:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2002/20020823h.gif --- 164.107.252.198 18:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe you should register an account...it doesn't give away your IP info. (I'm being serious here, as I know who you are, and I won't mention the name for privacy reasons.)--Toffile 01:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Being an anon adds fun to Wiki. Nobody takes me seriously :P *is RockMFR* --- 164.107.252.198 02:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. The host resolves to Ohio State's resnet. I wonder if you go to to OSU...--Toffile 02:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

GA status

GA awarded ... congrats. Lincher 17:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yay! --- 164.107.252.198 18:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool.--Toffile 01:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Advertising

Now when I go to gamefaqs there is a ad page before I can access the main site. Somebody should find when it started and put it under history.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.31.90.25 (talk) .

I've never seen that myself, but it's not significant. --Scottie theNerd 04:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The splash screen only appears when you're not logged in.Stewart 23:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Spinoffs

I find this section to be entirely non-notable. It's a trivial item that has very limited relevence for this aritcle. Sure, it's cited and all that, but so what if CJayC mentioned it? If he mentioned that he was drunk when he first made GameFAQs, would we include that even though it was cited and verified? It has to work into the article, and right now it sticks out like a sore thumb on the GameFAQs message boards header. I also continue to reiterate the unfairness of including only LUElinks - we need to mention all "notable" spinoffs or no spinoffs at all. Hbdragon88 17:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure why we have to bring up this debate again... it is relevant information and is notable, so I disagree with your non-notable claim. And the "unfairness" argument does not make any sense at all. This is an encyclopedia. We don't have to include everything that is possibly notable. If that was the case, every single article on Wikipedia would be blank. --- RockMFR 01:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Because I dispute it, and because you stopped discussing the issue up there (even though you told me to "build a bridge" but chose not to build one on this talk page). What, exactly, makes LUElinks more notable than any other GameFAQs spinoff? There is no assertion of notability. It's just a laundry list: "one such spinoff". It has not otherwise been mentioned by any reliable source, and the only source to back the site up is the site itself. It has to do something (backed by a reliable source) in order to make mention here. With that kind of criteria (citing the creator's site), we could include every other spinoff. It would be a monstrous landury list. Which is why I'm pushing for it to be removed altogether. Hbdragon88 05:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with "reliable sources" is that it's in the beholder's eye. For one person a blog entry would be fine, others would argue that using websites to establish notability of other websites is unacceptable. I for one know of a blog entry that might establish notability, but it will probably get removed regardless because it's not WP:RS. —shoecream 10:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There are many reasons why LUElinks is notable - compared to most English-speaking forums, it is quite large and has a significant amount of activity, despite it being inaccessible to the general public. Just doing some quick math in my head... it's activity level is about 10% that of GameFAQs (in terms of users online and posts/day). These are just some of the objective measurements of its notability, though you and I both know there is no source/ref for this stuff at the moment. These measurements alone make it more notable than every other spinoff (unless you know of a spinoff that has more activity than LUElinks). And then there are non-numerical measurements of its notability- it has drawn a good deal of traffic away from the original LUE, and GameFAQs. It has had a large influence on culture on GameFAQs (considering that many fads GameFAQs as of late have originated on LL, and possibly vice versa). It has been notable on its own in a variety of ways, none of which I feel I need to detail to you, unless you don't have an LL account and/or don't go there much.

If we are to include spinoffs, LUElinks is a must. IMO, every other spinoff of GameFAQs has paled in comparison to the success of LUElinks. So, the question is- should we include spinoffs? I think so. They are very culturally relevant to GameFAQs and provide a good measurement of how popular the GameFAQs message boards are. Think about it- do places like IGN, GameSpot, YTMND, Gaia Online ever reach a point where there is enough popularity to support SPINOFF message boards? No way. Extremely popular English-speaking forums like Something Awful have had success in this area, but few others have. Think about how many different code bases have been written for GameFAQs spinoffs- maybe a dozen? And there have been probably 100 different legitimate attempts at creating spinoff boards on GameFAQs, with about a dozen being quite successful in one way or another.

Go through Category:Internet forums- seriously, that thing is absolutely filled to the brim with AfD candidates. If the articles there can be considered the minimum for inclusion in Wikipedia, there is no way in hell that a place like LUElinks should be excluded from a small subsection in the GameFAQs article, where it is very very relevant. </wall of text> --- RockMFR 23:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The only support that the spinoffs world has been given is a small mention for the very, very earilest spinoff - GameFAQs Refugee (GFH) in late 2001. As far as I can discern, that's it. In March 2002, I believe that was the only spinoff to exist at the time. CJayC has done more to counter spinoffs, including banning the words "darksidelegion" (the first such spinoff to receive that dubious honor) and "Luelinks.net" due to excessive linkage.

I'm not disputing that LL is notable. A banned link means that it's made quite a mark on the GameFAQs message boards (similar to CheatCC or the modfiles). What I'm saying is that there is no reliable source to correlate the claims: it's anecdotal evidence. As of now, the section appears to have one criteria: sourcing the creator's website. If that was a criteria for inclusion, Wikipedia would have millions of articles about people linking to their own personal websites. This is why there ia a de facto criteria of notability. Typically, a press mention or something like that meets the standards of a reliable, verifable source. As for the Category:Internet forums - Wikipedia isn't perfect. Sometimes articles slip under. But just because those articles are there, it doesn't make it right for other articles to exist. If it's not worthy for Wikipedia, PROD or AFD is the route to go, though with so many canidates I'd be careful not to trip up on WP:POINT. Hbdragon88 00:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Some anon (probable sockpuppet) just blanked the LL stuff. I'm assuming it's a lame attempt at starting a revert war (or just more "LL doesn't exist" crap), so I'm noting it here in case someone wants to start more 3RR shit. --- RockMFR 16:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It's obviously the latter, not the former. Over at Talk:LUElinks there was a lot of stuff about "Sure, go ahead, we don't exist anyway" in response to the deletion and protection of the article. I find it rather interesting how you have the time to post here to avoid a probable 3RR but not have the time to respond to my concerns. Hbdragon88 23:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverted the latest removal. Apparently there was consensus to remove the information, but I see no such consensus on this page... --- RockMFR 23:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The onus of WP:V is for te person who wants to add it to prove that it is worthy of inclusion, not for the removers to prove that it should be removed. You haven't proved a thing besides anecdotal evidence. And I find it very discouraging that i even have to ring up on your user talk page or remove the section to get your damn attention. Hbdragon88 04:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverting AGAIN. The primary source is fine. Remove the whole article if you don't like primary sources. --- RockMFR 04:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

A primary source is not a source. We are looking for a secondary source to report on the primary source. Notice how the first cite (about what GF is about) is a secondary source, and we didn't cite the primary source. The notability of LUElinks is not established: linking to the primary source does not establish the notabilit. I will not blank the aritcle, Rock, and I'm not going to. All I want is a secondary source, and I have been patiently waiting for more than ten days waiting for it. You're just using my silence to keep the blurb in the article. If reverting is the only way to get you to actually discuss this, then so be it. Hbdragon88 05:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the last goddamn time I am dealing with you. Are you going for fucking WP:V, or notability? Secondary sources are not fucking required for every fucking factual statement in an article. We are not trying to give LL its own fucking article. Your blanking shit is vandalism, plain and simple. --- RockMFR 05:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Seccondary sources that are WP:V prove its notability. They should go hand in hand. This is not vandalism, this is a content dispute, one that you seem to refuse to want to discuss. I've been waiting for two weeks now: you are not responding at all. I think, indeed, that resorting to violent threats means that you can't prove that LUElinks meets both thresholds. Hbdragon88 05:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

So you are now arguing that the primary source is not reliable? Let's see...

Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

• it is relevant to the person's or organization's notability; Yes
• it is not contentious; Yes
• it is not unduly self-serving; Yes
• it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; Yes
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it. Yes --- RockMFR 05:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The relibility of a self-published source is dubious and that same guideline warns editors to be cautious in using it. "if the information...is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking." This is not an article about LUElinks itself, and should thus be treated per WP:RS#Self-published_sources. It is a report by an anonymous individual that should warrant no citation at all. A GA ought to demand better sources than a primary, self-published source. Hbdragon88 05:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The LL refs are not being used as secondary sources in relation to GameFAQs. They are purely used to provide information about LUElinks, which certainly falls into acceptable use of primary sources, whether or not this article is named "LUElinks" or "GameFAQs". --- RockMFR 05:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I spotted this at WP:THIRD, and I had a look through the issue. As background, until seeing this I wasn't aware that there was such a thing as a GameFAQ spinoff, so I think I can provide a neutral opinion. It seems to me that there are clearly a large number of GameFAQ spinoffs, and this should be mentioned in the article. The inclusion of "GameFAQs Hell" is beyond dispute, due to it being first. I would be comfortable with including one or two more, provided that they had some reason to stand out from the crowd. I don't see any evidence for that for LUElinks. Perhaps as a compromise solution, you could include a link to a list of spinoffs? Google found this list of spinoffs, but as I said, I'm not familiar with the community so someone with more knowledge should provide the list. The section also needs some material to describe exactly what a spinoff is, its relationship to the original board, whether it includes styles, back-end code, regular posters... basically the common and differentiated points. Orpheus 03:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

My MAIN reasoning for wanting to include LUElinks is because it is by far the most popular/active spinoff of all the spinoffs ever created (~15 million posts, over 10000 users, etc). Although this fact is difficult to reference, it is certainly not disputed (I assume Hbdragon88 has an account at LUElinks, which would allow him to easily verify this). Other than GameFAQs Hell and LUElinks, I see nothing else that is nearly as notable, though I have no preference whether we include two spinoffs or ten spinoffs. I definitely agree on including a link to the zeikfried spinoff listing, though I don't believe this should be an alternative to including spinoffs within the article. --- RockMFR 03:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

While the 6,000 members is listed though, the claim is lacking because the reader has no sense of perspective on how notable this is in comparison to other spinoffs (like you said, this fact would be difficult to reference). Yes, I know it that there are that many users, and you know it, but Wikipedia is about verifibaility, not truth. Hbdragon88 06:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it is "by far the most popular/active spinoff" then it should be in the article. I recognise that it's difficult to find sources for that, but it would be nice to know how many users/posts/etc the next-most popular spinoff had. I think that in this case a site stats page counts as a verifiable source. Orpheus 06:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Rock, do you have any objection to what Orpheus and i have been discussing - that LUElinks should be removed? Orpheus originally proposed that, but also said that if we could compare LL to the next most popular spinoff, it could stay. The problem is that most spinoffs are usually private and such data cannot be verified, so I'm leaning on having the spinoffs lsiting be moved up into the Spinoffs section and removing LL. Hbdragon88 22:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm still against removing LUElinks (seems Orpheus thinks it should be in, too). I'd like it if we could do the comparison thing that he spoke of. --- RockMFR 23:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Orpheus was only in if it could be verified if it was notable outside the chatter. But as far as I know, LUElinks is a complete rarity in the fact that it was actually open for awhile (which was staunchly opposed by a lot of users). As far as I know, no other spinoff has ever been open like that, at least long enough for the archive.org bot to pick it up. Hbdragon88 00:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should stay. According to the site stats it's got a fairly decent number of users, so unless someone can show that it doesn't stand out from the herd, I'll support it staying in the article. However, the spinoffs section as a whole needs a lot more detail. I think the reason the LUElinks mention seems jarring and disproportionate is that there's not enough discussion of what a spinoff is.

As for the quality of the source, I think we have to balance that against what we're discussing. For instance, if we were discussing who was the most important political figure in Elbonia, I wouldn't use the site stats pages of the competing politicians' blogs. For a rough, order of magnitude comparison of website popularity, however, I'm comfortable with using the stats page. If one or two other sites have on the order of several thousand users, they should be mentioned. If several other sites have around that many users, none of them should be mentioned.

I do have one further question though - what does the site admin think of it being mentioned? If privacy and being closed off from the world is such an issue, does he even want the site mentioned in Wikipedia? It would be polite to ask, imho. Orpheus 00:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Everyone knows it exists; The users are just generally secretive about what's on the site, in regard to outsiders.

-- Mik 02:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to revive the main discussion, but as to LUElinks being cited in Wikipedia, the administrator (Llamaguy) has never indicated any objection to knowledge of the site getting around. Though the existance of sites such as www.luelinks.tk might seem to cast doubt on this, the claim that "it doesn't exist" is merely a long running joke, not a serious attempt to spread that belief. Alternator 08:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Has someone been deleting the "secret board" sections? Kechvsf 01:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to note the fact that Luelinks has absolutely no publicity outside of LUE itself, which is a private board now. Llamaguy isn't as protective of the site as the userbase itself. I could provide pictures of what's going on in there, but, frankly, nobody wants that. Luelinks is the most successful spinoff. I see no evidence to suggest that other has been more notable. Dskzero 17:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Images

Is the current version of the logo cropped well? Should I crop the gray sidebars off of the screenshot? Are there any other images that might be appropriate for the article? --- RockMFR 23:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The logo needs less cropping on the sides - there should be blue-space around the entire logo. The grey sidebars in the screenshot should stay, since they are part of the layout of the site which everyone sees by default. Perhaps screenshots from before the redesign should be included, preferably one that depicts the main index page, as the current screenshot does. FireCrotchRIO 08:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms, Moderators and Admins Power Abusage

I finally managed to get accurate proof that moderators and admins on GameFaqs. I'm going to create a Criticisms section with Power Abusage as the first article. If anyone wants to add other criticisms in this section, let me know and I'll try keep mine short so that it doesn't take to much space. Duhman0009 21:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I trust this is going to be a neutral account of "power abuse" written using reliable sources and without any personal opinions? -- Steel 21:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I can stay neutral, but like it or not, it's pretty much with my GameFaqs account. I used myself as bait, went through all the contesting and saved the page on my HD. Duhman0009 21:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This should be interesting. --Scottie theNerd 21:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

In what sense do you say this? Duhman0009 21:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOR. Original research isn't allowed on Wikipedia. If you can find a independent, reputable source, then it might be usable. Otherwise, it can't be used. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well actually, I just plan to state that there is Power Abusage and then provide a link for a website which I will make that will show something better than a reputable source, it's picture proof. Duhman0009 01:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

...you might want to read the Wikipedia policy links already provided. Picture proof? Original research, and most likely inaccurate or fabricated. --Scottie theNerd 01:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

So without knowing me and without seeing what I'm about to show, you're already calling me a liar. Duhman0009 02:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at your archive discussion pages, it appears that you have a tendency to rely on your opinion rather than verifiable fact. Additionally, what you are doing isn't new; others have made similar, unsupported claims. I'm not calling you a liar, but as part of the GameFAQs staff, I already know what "evidence" you might have proves nothing, nor does it fulfill Wikipedia policy. If you like to prove me wrong, please do so. --Scottie theNerd 02:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, since you already know what it is, why not share it with everyone? Also, you do realize that by stating that you are part of the GameFaqs staff, that you are admitting to a conflict of interest, so your opinion in anything should not count. Duhman0009 02:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless you've got a copy of a Federal Enquiry into Moderator activity on GameFAQs, you've basically got nothing. --Scottie theNerd 01:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Original Research

Hang on a second here. I just read your method under Steel's comment: "Well I can stay neutral, but like it or not, it's pretty much with my GameFaqs account. I used myself as bait, went through all the contesting and saved the page on my HD."

In other words, you've done original research, but not only that, you're using yourself as the "test specimen". Not only is this against Wikipedia policy, but it is also poor research; you're using one example, and your own example, as a criticism for a whole site? Furthermore, you are not a credible source either. Make a Criticism section, and it will be immediately reverted as per Wikipedia policies mentioned above.

Now, you have just claimed that because I am part of the GameFAQs moderation staff, my opinion should not count. However, you are using yourself as "bait" to gather "evidence" to "prove" a point you want to prove and not what is actual truth. Therefore, since you are your own test subject, I could equally claim that your opinion should not count. In fact, that's what I will assert: if you make an edit, make sure that your information is verifiable and not your own opinion as already stated above. You came into this idea with your own opinion, and you went out to get evidence to make sure your opinion looked substantial. You have not researched anything other than your own opinion.

In short, drop the idea entirely before the rest of the editors mob you. If you're going to do original research, learn the difference between fact and opinion. --Scottie theNerd 02:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well now you're quick to defend your possible guilty actions (mods don't leaves their names on GameFaqs, so it could be you). And no, since I'm not part of the GameFaqs staff, my word in this does count. Also, by your logic, if you were to take a picture of a crime in progress, it would not be a reliable source because you're just a single individual. I wasn't gonna state that GameFaqs Mods are power abusers without conclusive proof of an actual event that took place. Seems to me like you hang out here to make sure that people keep quiet about these sort of things. Duhman0009 02:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Now you're making personal accusations. You're doing big favours for yourself here. Keep in mind that a crime scene investigation is different from gathering sources for an encyclopedic article. Police investigations require first-hand evidence, not credible sources. Writing encyclopedic articles or essays requires the opposite. Again, read the Wikipedia guidelines. If you cannot verify your criticisms, you have no case. This has nothing to do with my status on GameFAQs, and again, since you're the one doing your own experiments, you have no conclusive proof either way. --Scottie theNerd 02:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Tisk, tisk tisk, I said posssible actions, that's not a direct accusation. Now first of all, if Wikipedia wants to consider itself a real encyclopedia, it needs to drop a lot of content from pop-culture, GameFaqs is one of them. You wouldn't find an article on a web site like GameFaqs or an article from a video game title in a real encyclopedia. The simple fact that Wikipedia is accepting these sort of things means that they need to be open minded to others. Also, what would stop me from making that website that I was talking about and have someone else use it to add a Criticisms section on GameFaqs' Wiki page? It would no longer be personal research since it would be my work used by someone else. Duhman0009 02:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, where to begin:

1. Firstly, you said you have "accurate" research on GF Moderators being power-hungry, and you just suggested that I could be one of them. Then you accuse me of "hanging out" here to silence people like you. Now you're saying you're not accusing me. Sounds like you have no idea what you're on about.

Oh that, ya sorry, I thought you were talking about the "possible guilty actions" thing. Ya, the "hanging to keep these things quiet", that I totally accuse you of it, I mean who wouldn't after all the text you typed to defend GameFaqs.Duhman0009 03:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

1. You keep claiming that as a GF Moderator, my opinion should not count. I have not asserted any opinions; I am directing you to Wikipedia policies.

And I'm talking about the fact that if I make add a section to GameFaqs' Wiki page, that you'll be the first one to reverse it, that's why I bring the conflict of interest in this.Duhman0009 03:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

1. As you are not part of the GameFAQs staff, you have no knowledge of how the administrative side works, and therefore your research has no credibility.

Dude, that's like saying "because you're not part of the mafia, you can't prove that we're committing crimes." Any sort of negative reviews will come from outside a company, like a reporter that witnesses something and reports on it. I'm doing the same thing, I witness something and I plan to report on it. Duhman0009 03:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Getting someone else to make a website containing your evidence does not make it credible.

Actually, it's the opposite. I was saying that if someone else decides to add a Criticism section and use my work for references. Duhman0009 03:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia is built on verifiability. I don't know where this "encyclopedias don't contain pop-culture" idea from. Printed encyclopedias don't cover contemporary culture because things change by the time they are printed; whereas an online encyclopedia can quickly gather sources and document emerging culture as well as past culture.

Well I still don't recall seeing an article about the Terminator in a real encyclopedia or one on the Nintendo 64 and those are old enough to be in there and not have any sudden changes. Duhman0009 03:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Real encyclopedias are also restricted in the scope of their content, whereas an online encyclopedia does not face deadlines, physical size limitations or printing costs.

Gonna be a while before Wikipedia is viewed as a real encyclopedia by the people that matter, so ya, I guess it might as well have anything pop-culture related to differ itself. Duhman0009 03:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

1. It appears that you're still working from assumptions and want to desperately prove to the world that we're corrupt entities. Let me put things into perspective for you: you are one moderation case on GameFAQs. We've seen just over 2 million moderations on GameFAQs from its beginning. To us, and to any regular at GameFAQs, you're just another person complaining about a fair moderation.

Ah man, now I'm really sure that you're not part of the mods that took part in the event. Man, you wouldn't believe what went on in there! You probably have access to my account, go take a look Duhman0009 03:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

1. It appears you haven't bothered reading any of the policies provided.

Scanned it quickly few months ago, don't care much about it, I prefer coming here to talk to people about changing things and voting on it. Duhman0009 03:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Don't "tisk" me.

Is that an order? Duhman0009 03:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

--Scottie theNerd 03:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, my direct replies to your points seem to have screwed things up. Mind fixing it, I'm not to good at this. Thanks Duhman0009 03:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to be in the Mafia to understand the law. However, you need to be in the Mafia in order to know how the Mafia works. In regards to your research: your research is not credible. What's so hard to understand about that? It doesn't matter who uses it; it doesn't make your research any more legitimate. Again, I am not defending GameFAQs, I am merely pointing out Wikipedia policies. If you do not adhere to the policies, your edits will be removed regardless. I assure you, friend, I am the least of your problems. Since you admit that you haven't bothered reading the Wikipedia editing guidelines, that brings this discussion to an end. This isn't about GameFAQs, this is about Wikipedia. If you want to argue about Wikipedia, go talk to Jimbo Wales. I have tried being civil with you, but since you're doing little but arguing superficial points instead of addressing the concerns the editors expressed above, I see no further use for this discussion. --Scottie theNerd 03:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm also going to have to agree that this is original research which goes against Wikipedia policies regardless whether you believe it is neutral or fair- What you believe may not be what it is. Nevertheless, it's still an original research and I sense it might have some bias. After all, you did have to "bait" to develop your research. It would've been better if you merely "observed"*. Again however, it doesn't matter as it is original research.

• There is a huge contrast between simply observing the fish's behavior from baiting the fish's reaction.

--BirdKr 15:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

-Duhman, show the pictures of you being modded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.68.191.179 (talk)

And what would that achieve? --Scottie_theNerd 01:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Punch a few more holes in his argument? -- Jelly Soup 06:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That wouldn't achieve anything. Pictures can be doctored. Dskzero 17:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Original name of site

Didn't GameFAQs used to be called SegaSages, which was renamed to GameSages, and then to GameFAQs? This all would've been 10+ years ago. I'm not thinking of a different site, am I? Sean K 13:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

SegaSages was bought by IGN and was incorporated into cheats.ign.com, if I recall correctly. --- RockMFR 21:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

GameSages and GameFAQs were different sites. --Scottie theNerd 00:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Future FA push

I think this article may have the potential to attain FA status. This will also send some much-needed ripples through the Community, stating that message board sources are adequete in certain situations. — Deckiller 19:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The FAC process will literally kill the article because of its soft message board sources. I still have issues with LUElinks being the only spinoff listed (as it is a self-published source), but if that was removed, the Spinoff section would be a trivial note. Also, I believe that there has been some warring over whether the contests section should be retained or not. Perhaps it might be FA...just throwing out some current issues that this article has had. Hbdragon88 22:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Like I said, there's plenty of potential here — we just have to keep things in perspective and work on the issues one at a time. I'd be willing to help out some more. — Deckiller 05:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

There just aren't enough secondary sources to get this to FA status, in my opinion. Adding content to this article will be very difficult (let alone keeping all the content it currently has). However, current content disputes are trivial. The inclusion of the contests section has only been argued against by one editor, and the LUElinks issue will probably never die :) --- RockMFR 05:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've actually seen articles with less available secondary sources reach FA status, such as Diary of a Camper. It's possible, albeit improbably right now :) — Deckiller 16:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What could we use for an image on the main page? --- RockMFR 22:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Cropped version of the main page, with the GameFAQs logo as the main focus. --Scottie theNerd 23:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If Torchic can reach FA, GameFAQs surely can :) --- RockMFR 04:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I've never cared for the contest section as it is myself, but I am impressed with the way the article has grown and the merging of LUEshi and the message board pages. I think it's a good article now and think you should have a go at FA status, although maybe push through peer review first. Well done to all who have worked on it so far. I've just added a bit detailing the mention in The Guardian. Saw that and thought I'd drop back in to add it. Hiding Talk 18:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Glad to see the bold push. I'll give it another copyedit (it's been a month or so since the last one I did), and then I'll try and get someone to give it another proofread. — Deckiller 21:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

LUElinks again

I continue to be amused at the number of anonymous users who always erase the LUElinks section or claim that it doesn't exist. Hbdragon88 03:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As I see it, the mention of LUElinks shouldn't be part of the article on the grounds that citable information on that site is rather difficult (If not impossible.) to obtain. True, we have a cited userbase estimation from Oct. 2004 but I think such dated information shouldn't be included at all. Just my 2 cents on the issue. Sephirothson 21:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Going by that logic, we wouldn't have an article about Jesus... or Dell Dude! :) --- RockMFR 23:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Um what? Dell Dude has lots much coverage from multiple non-trivial sources. Jesus...he had a lot of disciples with him, whom wrote about him. Both surely qualify under WP:BIO. Hbdragon88 01:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I was making a joke about the use of dated information... --- RockMFR 01:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, gotcha. Hbdragon88 01:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You do have a point. I guess it's not doing any harm by being there so in the end, I really don't care too much as to what happens with the LUElinks section. I'll let someone else fight that battle. ~ Sephirothson 04:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's open again. I guess Llamaguy opened up the Stats page for anyone to view - the rest of the pages are still member-only. Hbdragon88 22:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Old copyvio allegation

I wanted to put this to rest once and for all. It's always bothered me ever since it first came up.

Back in March of this year, a ton of material was removed from this article [2] due to belief that a significant portion of the article was copy and pasted from here [3]. I've been going through the old edit history and found some substantial proof that in fact, Wikipedia was the source of the info that ended up on GameFAQsInfo.net. The original text was created during this edit [4], and significant changes were made to that text later on in this edit [5]. The copyedits made on Wikipedia can be found within the version on GameFAQsInfo.net, which is pretty good proof that there was never a copyvio issue with this article. --- RockMFR 04:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• You may be right, the earliest I can find it on that site through the internet archive is June 2004: [6]. I'll write an email to the site and determine the issue, because if we did originate it then they are breaching our copyright. That said, I'd oppose the reinstatement of the text because it is trivial and mostly unsourced. Hiding Talk 11:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• I don't care about re-adding the text. The useful information in it is already in the current version. --- RockMFR 17:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• I can't work out how to contact whoever runs that site, so I doubt we'll ever get a definitive answer one way or the other. Hiding Talk 11:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else have this problem?

I know it has nothing to do with the article, but everytime I try to go on the message boards(note not the list of message boards, but the boards themselves) a bunch of coding and foreign language pops up. Is this an issue with the site or is it just a bad connection I have at the moment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SnakePlane789 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

• Sounds like a problem on your end. Try hitting ctrl+F5 on one of the board pages. --- RockMFR 00:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried it but it didn't work. Is there anything else? Thanks for the help though--SnakePlane789 00:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It works now. Thanks anyway--SnakePlane789 15:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Should we have mini-articles for the Message Boards?

You know, like the pro wrestling board and what usually happens there or its history or the TV board? I am just asking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SnakePlane789 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

No, none of them are notable enough outside of GameFAQs. Unless some of them have received a significant amount of coverage with reliable sources. Koweja 01:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there should at least be mention of the number of non-video game Special Interest boards and Social board. I don't see them mentioned at all in the article. 4.234.51.41 18:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we can say some of the more popular ones in 1 sentence, but certianly not a paragraph on them, not notable enough.--Wizardman 18:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

A section like this strikes me as a good place in insert a line about LUE/LUELinks (so we can finally bury this poor, beaten horse). -- Jelly Soup 06:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

GameFAQs Archive

As you may be aware, the GFA has been relaunched, and can be accessed via its own location or the new URL http://gamefaqsarchive.com. This should assist with the citing of sources regarding official announcements that were previously deleted as a result of my site being taken offline. --Roaddhogg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.97.202.146 (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

:D --- RockMFR 00:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

OOHHHHH MY GAWWWDD I CAN'T BELIEVE IT! I MUST BE DREAMING! The GFA is finally back?!?!?! *sends two years worth of files* Hbdragon88 01:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, what they said O.O --Scottie theNerd 03:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently my description of the site was not suitable for inclusion in the main article: I'm not entirely familiar with Wikipedia, so I'd appreciate it if someone (Rock?) could re-add the link with an appropriate description.

Nevermind. Overlooked it. >_>

Entertainment Weekly review from 2000

Link: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,275310,00.html

I'm thinking we could eventually create a separate section for reviews and press coverage rather than dumping this stuff in the lead. And of course we then will need to make a decent lead. --- RockMFR 01:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I just worked this into the lead. I don't think a separate section will be necessary for this, even though having unique information in the lead is a frequent criticism at WP:FAC. --- RockMFR 03:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

LUEshi

An image of LUEshi was recently added to the article. Should we have an image of LUEshi at all? If so, should it be an image of the original post, or should it just contain LUEshi without the rest of the post content? --- RockMFR 17:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so unless the brief mention of LUEshi can be expanded into, say, at least a paragraph or so. I don't think that one mention in one sentence qualifies as the "critical commentary" needed to claim fair use. In either case, just the LUEshi; we don't need the post. Hbdragon88 22:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even sure it's necessary to illustrate LUEshi for the reader. A description of Mario riding Yoshi is ample, given that it's really not that critical to the article (despite what many LUEsers would say, I'm sure). Leebo⁸⁶ 05:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care one way or the other. Consensus seems to be that we don't absolutely need it, so if anyone wants to be bold and remove the image, go ahead. Tag it with the appropriate orphan template if removed, as it is fair use. --- RockMFR 22:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Two people does not a consensus make... keep the image in... the agreement when the article on LUEshi was deleted was that it should be merged into this article... deleting it sorta defeats the larger consensus there.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No, there was no consensus to merge anything from that article, and nothing was merged. The image was added long after the article was deleted. --- RockMFR 07:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Take that, LUEshi! Hbdragon88 02:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

While it isn't necessary, it is helpful, so I am going to restore the image unless there are any objections. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I don't care one way or the other (this may come as a surprise to some, considering that I believe LUEshi is a god). It'd be nice to not have a revert war ensue over this issue. If the image is removed again, then that's the way it should be. --- RockMFR 02:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

POTD redirects here

Why does Potd redirect to this page?

Marco van Hulten 17:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Check the history of the page prior to the redirect. It was an article about one board on GameFAQs, so I decided to just redirect it here rather than bother with afd. --- RockMFR 18:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

RSS Feeds

I personally do not know much about the newly implimented RSS feeds but would it be worth it to add a paragraph, perhaps under "features", about this? -- Sephirothson 15:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother. It's a small addition in relation to everything else. Jack Nelson 06:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Section sequencing

Surely this article's "FAQs" section should be placed before the "Message boards" section, rather than after it? After all, the site was originally created as an archive of game guides rather than a discussion forum. No doubt these days many message board users spend more time browsing forums than reading the FAQs, but if you're a casual user looking for game information, you're likely to check the FAQs before asking other users.

I could be bold and move the section myself, but first I'd rather ask what other people reckon. --Nick R^Talk 16:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think the order really matters too much. --- RockMFR 20:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Porn ads

I hear there are porn ads on GameFAQs now. *waits for it* --- RockMFR 20:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought CraCE (aka Jammer, IIRC) WAS porn ads.... Hbdragon88 01:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Quoth Ceej on the Daily Grind, "ZOMG Pr0n! From: CJayC | Posted: 2/1/2007 1:37:02 PM | Message Detail Well, not quite porn, but we did get a few inappropriate ads running on the site today. CNET's ad team was quick to respond, as they weren't even aware of the issue; the ads came from outside of CNET. " There actually WAS porn, but all it was was a few naked breasts. No down below shots, thongs at least were worn in the pictures.--Azp2k32 23:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Contact information

Is it me, or does Gamefaqs has no way for users to inquire as to why they were banned or contact administration in any way for any reason? 70.16.26.211 22:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

http://www.gamefaqs.com/features/feedback/ --- RockMFR 01:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"Battle Royal" link

Why does the "Battle Royal" link (http://www.gamefaqs.com/features/contest/cb5) in the Contests section link to the same place as "Character Battle V" which, as far as I can see, makes no mention of this poll? Or am I just not looking in the right place? QmunkE 15:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The Battle Royal occurred at the end of Character Battle V and is briefly mentioned as "Battle Royale" on that page (the spelling is also a bit of an issue, but it's correct the way it is now). The results used to be listed there, too, but I guess the only way to see the results now is to check the individual poll pages. I guess it might make sense to remove the links to Battle Royal and Tournament of Champions as it might be a bit confusing to have two different links to the same pages. I guess the links are there now only for aesthetic reasons. --- RockMFR 16:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Weird

Some of GameFAQS' guides were created before GameFAQS itself. How was this possible? 124.180.66.13 10:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

CJayC, when creating the Video Game FAQ Archive, took FAQs that were already in circulation at the time. The FAQs therefore pre-date the creation of GameFAQs as a site. --Scottie_theNerd 10:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Something else.

Guides that are incomplete and have not been edited for many years should be deleted, since it's sort of obvious that the guide creator will never edit that guide again. And completed guides that have not been edited for a long time or that belong to dead users should be finalised. What do you guys think about these options? What is the longest time an incomplete guide has not been edited? And what is the longest time between two edits of a guide? 124.180.66.13 10:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the article. --Scottie_theNerd 10:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Picture

Can we get a non-character contest poll image of the front page? The character contest isn't year-round, and more often it's a regular poll. Hbdragon88 04:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm partial to the current image because the contest isn't year-round, so it shows the reader a state of the site that they wouldn't normally see by clicking the URL (still assuming that most of our readers are reading this article online). Today probably wouldn't be a good day to get a new image anyways due to the whole April Fools thing going on. Either way, I don't think identification of the website (the main purpose of this image) is a concern. --- RockMFR 04:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no April Fool's joke besides the poll - I just hit The Daily Grind and saw that CJayC wasn't putting one up. But it's not really that important, I was just wondering if the image should e updated or not. Hbdragon88 04:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

GameFAQs 2

Quite simply, it is not important. --- RockMFR 21:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Personally I thought you were going to revert my initial deletion of it (when Planetfreak posted the link), but really, it's unnecessary. Whoever is reading this, stop trying to spam here. Dbm11085 22:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The Usercount as of 5/6/2007 for LUELinks is equal to...

The number of users at 7:51 Central time on May 6, 2007, is exactly 10643. This was found by multiplying 50 (the number of users on a page) by 212 (the number of pages of users), and adding the remaining users on page 213. This information was obtained from the LUELinks user list. This includes recently banned, suspended, sockpuppet, or unused accounts.

10643.

Scratch that, 11038. Thats the userid of the last person on the list.

discuss. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CompuHacker (talk • contribs) 00:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

OMG 11038'? Come hither, George Lucas! There's really nothing to discuss, we don't need to state the # of users on LL. In fact I still object to the inclusion of LL in the first place, but oh well I'll leave it (I'm not going to beat a dead horse). hbdragon88 01:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)