24.16.250.186 (talk) |
24.178.152.80 (talk) |
||
Line 188: | Line 188: | ||
From what I have seen on the DOW site, it is being used to direct traffic to VMKforums, Toontown Central, and PiratesOnlineForums which charges members to join. I do not see any difference in this and any other fansite. I do not think it is right to allow some fan sites, but not others. If all the sites contain the same information then they should all be allowed or none at all. Just my 2 cents. |
From what I have seen on the DOW site, it is being used to direct traffic to VMKforums, Toontown Central, and PiratesOnlineForums which charges members to join. I do not see any difference in this and any other fansite. I do not think it is right to allow some fan sites, but not others. If all the sites contain the same information then they should all be allowed or none at all. Just my 2 cents. |
||
DOW will stay and all directly-linked fansites will go. I think we've beat this horse enough. As long as Aficionada or whoever else keeps adding links to their poorly maintained free-forum based sites, they will be removed. [[User:24.178.152.80|24.178.152.80]] 12:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:13, 27 March 2007
- Older items moved to Talk:Virtual Magic Kingdom/Archive. - Brian Kendig 18:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Unprofessional Format
I've looked through the guide again and noticed that most things have comments made by the editor
(Such as, The Epcot Room is out now! it is so cool! everybody wants it!)
So if anybody has the time please listen to the rewrite and let this topic be professional for once. Bearflip 02:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Hidden Mickey list
I wasn't sure what to do with the list of the locations of all fifty Hidden Mickeys. On one hand, it took up a lot of space in the article, and it's non-encyclopedic (even more so than the list of codes, which are at least interesting in that they show what sorts of things can be won via codes). On the other hand, it's useful to people, and it helps Wikipedia's coverage of the game be complete. I decided to break it out into its own new article, Hidden Mickeys in the Virtual Magic Kingdom, so that Wikipedia would contain it but it wouldn't add clutter to the article. - Brian Kendig 16:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks -- I like the idea of putting the hidden mickey "spoilers" into a separate article. Note however that the "official" list you posted (straight from VMK) is poorly descriptive, compared to what was originally posted (although I have no idea what its original source was). Putting in this "non-encyclopedic" information in Wikipedia does seem to be a bit of a slippery slope though -- people might now want to also include in-park quest answers, in-park quest common trivia questions, etc. How to decide what to include? I assume the goal is NOT to produce a "game guide", with solutions to Airlock Escape, or playing tips for the various other games. Bezoar 13:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, I wondered why information was missing. An dictionary would explain what a capitol is, but an encyclopedia would list of all the capitols of US States. Since the number and locations are known and definitive, it's "fact" as opposed to trying to recreate hiddenmickeys.org in the Wikipedia (so many opinions on what is or is not a Mickey). That said, I've found this page to answer more VMK questions than the handful of fan sites I have visited (I just discovered VMK last week, though I admit to being outside of the "age 8-14" range the game was designed for). I was glad to find that listing, and consider it more to be a spoiler for movies. --Allen Huffman 20:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
removal of useful links
The article is much more useful with the links to the various sites and forums devoted to VMK. There's no reason to restrict linking to the official site proper. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not states: "There is nothing wrong with adding a list of content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." This list doesn't dwarf this article. - Nunh-huh 09:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Fansites like those are culled regularly by administrators from pop-culture articles. My reccommandation would be to try choosing one or two that you really think should be there. WhiteNight T | @ | C 09:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, some overzealous people cull them all. I would have no objection to a shorter list, but I do have objection to any attempt to expunge them entirely. Links are meant to provide access to further information - information we may not want in our article, but that people reading our article might want access to. - Nunh-huh 10:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not meant to be a link repository. External links are meant for web pages which add more detailed information to what is discussed in the article, but links to entire sites and discussion forums are better left to the services such as Dmoz and Yahoo which are dedicated to the task. The problem is that if we allow one fan site to be linked from the article, then every person who runs a fan site will want his to be linked from the article, and this sometimes turns into a big war over which sites are "worthy" and which aren't - the best solution to this problem is just to avoid it completely. If there's a web page out there which, say, is an interview with a VMK developer who gives lots of interesting background information on the game, then I'd agree it's suitable as an external link; but the sites you've linked have information which pretty much duplicates what's in Wikipedia, and have discussion boards which definitely aren't encyclopedic. Why do you want to try to duplicate the work which Dmoz and Yahoo already do so much better? If you'd like, maybe we could just link to the appropriate Dmoz/Yahoo category instead. - Brian Kendig 17:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
The external links on Wikipedia have always been very useful to me. I'd rather find a list that is reviewed than an open directory that contains mostly crap links. If someone has a specific reason why a link should not be there (ie, not informative; commercial site trying to sell stuff; etc.) then it can be removed. But it's very useful to read about a topic, then find some places that explore the topic far more than Wikipedia. That's the very nature of a "See Also..." isn't it? Although I find at least one item in the list to be rather useless since it's full of kids (or adults who type like kids) hacking and editing and commenting, rendering it rather useless, that's just how open Wiki's work. Including this one. --Allen Huffman 20:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- To say that this topic has received lots of discussion over lots of articles through lots of time would be understating the issue. Have a look at Wikipedia:External links and m:When should I link externally for some guidelines, and in particular see Wikipedia talk:External links for a great amount of discussion on the topic. - Brian Kendig 22:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Allen, By all means remove links which do not cover the subject in more depth than we do. But that will not include all of them except the "official" one. - Nunh-huh 07:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
How about this:
- If a web page corroborates the information in this article, then link to it under a Sources section. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. This article needs some sources to be cited, anyway.
- If a page contains in-depth information about a specialized topic which, while interesting, is too esoteric to be of much interest to people in an encyclopedia, then link to it from External links. See Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
- If a site is the predominant and widely-recognized central source of information on this topic, then link to it from External links.
- But if a site is one of many fan sites on the topic, and doesn't otherwise stand out under the points above, then don't link to it. That's what Yahoo/Dmoz/Google are for.
- Brian Kendig 18:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- That certainly sounds reasonable. - Nunh-huh 02:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Being as how you're the one who's championing the external links, I'll let you apply these guidelines to 'em. :) - Brian Kendig 22:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm a newbie to Wikipedia, but it seems totally pointless to link to the top level of the DIS Forums or Intercot or whatnot. For example, the DIS Forums have several million posts, with 64,000 of them in the VMK forum. Linking to the DIS Boards is, I think, less useful than linking to a Google search. Because I don't agree with this use of external links (pointing to fan sites and discussion forums, rather than to specific sources and articles of information), I'm not going to go through and fix the external links. But perhaps the people who want them can at least point them to the appropriate sub-forum? Bezoar 15:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Just wanted to add that I agree with Brian on this - MagicKnight 08:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
NPCs versus Characters?
Doesn't the VMK game call them "Characters" rather than NPCs? --Allen Huffman 21:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yup, it does. I'll revert the edit that renamed that section. - Brian Kendig 21:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
If they are characters, then why are u able to say NPC in the game? 70.170.93.169 00:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protection?
This article seems to have become a frequent target of vandalism by anons and newly-created accounts. By my count, vandalism and reversions account for more than half of the most recent 100 edits. What would y'all say to this article being semi-protected to cut down on the vandalism? - Brian Kendig 22:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'm semi-protecting this article in an effort to hold off the vandalism. See Wikipedia talk:Semi-protection policy for my discussion of the policy. - Brian Kendig 00:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Timeline
The timeline is subject to dispute, the dates are not entirely acurate and I feel this information is frivilous, not needed and clutters the article. - MagicKnight 00:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Codes
I'm starting to think, in the interests of making this more of an encyclopedia article and less of a game guide, that the list of codes to get credits really doesn't belong here. I used to be in favor of it, but I don't think I am any more. Anyone else have an opinion on it? Or is there any other material in this article that's more like a game guide and doesn't really belong? Like, maybe some of the Events section can be removed and/or condensed? - Brian Kendig 05:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, if there are no dissenting opinions, I'm going to start dumping a lot of the game-guide-ish stuff about VMK into Wikibooks. - Brian Kendig 19:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Codes are very helpful. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.144.135.54 (talk • contribs)
Hey bingo
I think the codes are a good idea as Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia but is still MUCH more than that.
It has loads of other things, not just boring info. See ya - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alligator1234 (talk • contribs)
StrategyWiki
No one's offered an opinion so far, so I'll just ask once more before I move stuff. Wikibooks is starting to discourage game guide material and it's instead recommending that StrategyWiki [1] be the destination for such material, so I've created a stub VMK article there [2] in preparation for moving some VMK information there and out of Wikipedia. Specifically, some of the things I would like to move OUT OF Wikipedia and INTO StrategyWiki are:
- The list of multi-use codes
- The entirety of Virtual Magic Kingdom collectible items
- The entirety of Hidden Mickeys in the Virtual Magic Kingdom
Anyone have any opinions, yea or nay? - Brian Kendig 04:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- To ensure full GFDL compliance remember to copy the edit history onto the talk page (example). :) GarrettTalk 10:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for the tip; I didn't know about this! Is there a policy page somewhere which explains the need for it? What if I'm moving a section of an article - what edit history needs to be copied, then? - Brian Kendig 11:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- You can see m:Transwiki for the whole process and all the reasoning (note the transwiki log isn't used by StrategyWiki). But basically the GFDL requires a list of the major authors of the text in question, and the history paste-in is the easiest way to achieve this (and so has become policy). For a section move all you really need to do is put something like "split from cool#rad" in the edit summary (and similar for the page you're cutting it from). The history paste-in is only for author tracking between projects, everything else can be done with backlinks or redirects. GarrettTalk 22:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for the tip; I didn't know about this! Is there a policy page somewhere which explains the need for it? What if I'm moving a section of an article - what edit history needs to be copied, then? - Brian Kendig 11:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I've moved the information to StrategyWiki. Please feel free to turn that article into a terrific VMK game guide, while leaving this article encyclopedic in nature. - Brian Kendig 21:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
FYI
Just as a note for everyone, I have replaced the pictures of quest cards with clearer pictures. - Yumsse 8:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, the images you put (Image:PrcklyPearChr.JPG and Image:GldnEars.jpg) are smaller and of much lower quality than the previous images (Image:Vmk-card-cactuschair.jpg and Image:Vmk-card-goldenears.jpg). - Brian Kendig 14:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
what FYI stand for? -KanuT 13:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Look it up in Wikipedia! FYI - Brian Kendig 03:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Unreleased Costumes
I have added a bit to Clothing, explaining known information about unreleased costumes. Please tell me what you think. Yumsse 14:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- OK, who deleted it? Yumsse 13:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oh wait, nvm. Yumsse 13:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC) i never get codes
We need Production info...
All that gameplay info is felpful, but could we add some production notes and things like that too? I bet quite a few casual readers would like to know how this got started, who started it, what it used to look like, etc. If we don't, this article won't be so high-quality... Abby724 05:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please feel free to add this kind of material, as long as you attribute the sources of your information! - Brian Kendig 20:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
References
According to a Community Leader you have to have a Degree in Computer Science in order to become a VMK Staff Member.
Can anyone find a reference for this recently added sentence? Vanguard 14:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup/rewrite
Having read through this, it almost all appears to be based off of primary source material or original research. If secondary sources exist, this needs to be stubbed and written from verifiable content (most of what's here seems to be original research of the type "I played the game and found..."). Also, much of the "howto" information ("to get this item do this") needs to be deleted-WP:NOT a howto or game guide. Seraphimblade 02:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please, have at it. I believe that all the material in this article can be sourced; I just have to find the correct sources in the VMK.com documentation and the fan sites. (So please don't gut the article!) As for the "howto" information, I've been diligently trying to keep the article free of that, but some of it's crept back in over the past week or two. - Brian Kendig 02:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I just deleted a whole bunch of stuff from the article, that mainly was stuff like "One time, I was playing a game, and it was fun". WestJet 04:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Disneyworldonlines cites most of the sources making all areas of the article true. Bearflip 02:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
When I read the article, it sounded like to me Wikipedia was making VMK sound bad. It was almost like VMK was very low quality and it wasn't fun at all. That's the impression I got. But I play it, and it's not that bad.
What's wrong with VMK?
When I read the article, it sounded like to me Wikipedia was making VMK sound bad. It was almost like VMK was very low quality and it wasn't fun at all. That's the impression I got. But I play it, and it's not that bad.
For kids not adults
This game is for all ages but for manily kids becase its made by disney. So teens and adults play too they have found there way around the bad word rules. Saying any bad words will be blocked they have the turned not allowed word hell to he'll or he will. They have also made groups based on real life tragides,for insance armys groups of hunters and respect the twin towers sounds like bush iying all over again.
What are you saying?
As long as the life expectancy is over 13, expect that a lot --- It's not 8-13. It happens to be 8-14. Read the VMK Values. It also says that any age can play.
VMk For New Players
When you first start VMk, you make a simple player.Throughout the game, you upgrade your player and make him/her look better, or more stylish. Once you start Vmk, you are given a room of your choice, and 1 2-seating organ. Explore the Kingdon to get credit, make friends, buy items, play games, buy pins, and just to have fun! Please note VMK sometimes takes a long time to load. This is just part of the game. Please see me in GreenParty room, by greenWarrior
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.172.142.164 (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
Simple And Easy Codes
To get simple codes, go to the VMK main homepage and go to the Arcade. Click Narnia, or Pirates, and play to win easy codes! The pirate game is hard, but the Narnia one just makes you answer questions, so try both. See you in the game, GreenWarrior —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.172.142.164 (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
External links
It has come to my attention that there are a couple of users out there looking to make Wikipedia their own personal advertising grounds for their fansite or seprate wiki. THIS IS NOT THE PLACE. As long as people continue to add these links in, just to get traffic to their site, they WILL BE REMOVED. The purpose of this section of Wikipedia.org is to provide informative and reliable information about VMK, not unreliable and poorly-maintained external links and refrences to other fansites and wikis of which we cannot control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.152.80 (talk • contribs) 13:23, March 15, 2007 (UTC)
- There is no prohibition against linking to a few major fan sites for games like this one; please don't assume that such links are 'spam' being added by the sites' maintainers. The wiki link you've been removing as spam is actually, as far as I can tell, much better maintained and has better information than the freewebs site that was left in, and than the page on strategywiki, which is mainly a list of items available for players to collect. I've replaced those sites with the disney worlds online wiki, and also reordered the links: the official site should be listed first. -- Vary | Talk 14:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It sounds like the resolution for this would be to keep only the official game link in the EL section. The problem with keeping these links in is that the editors who are adding them are people who are adding them to get traffic to other sites they own, such as DOW, who has many link-backs to other fansites they "own." I do not think that other wiki links belong in this wiki. It is almost like going to one of these fansites and advertising another, which you know is usually not allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.152.80 (talk • contribs) 15:41, March 15, 2007 (UTC)
- Again, please do not assume that the people who are adding these links are the owners of these fan sites. There is no problem with adding links to fan-maintained sites, if they have good information. Note that WP:EL reccomends avoiding "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." The Disney Online Worlds wiki has both (besides which, registration is required to edit, so it's not really 'open,' either). Please take a look at the articles of some other online games: you'll see that they all include a few links to well-maintained fan sites. Links to fan sites can be useful, because they contain a level of detail which is not possible or appropriate in a Wikipedia article. This link is permissible under wikipedia policy, and there's no policy-based reason to remove it. It has been added several times by different editors, and you appear to be the only one who has a problem with it. Please be aware that frequent, persistent reverting against consensus is considered edit warring, and is strongly discouraged, and that wikipedia has a three revert rule to help prevent revert wars.
- Also, please be careful not to remove other editor's comments on talk pages, as you did here; reverting both my edit on the main article and my justification of said edit on the talk page might look disingenuous. And please remember to sign your talk page comments using four tildes (~~~~) -- Vary | Talk 16:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
There are others who have had a problem, too, as you can see up the page. I do not think that people's personal fansites and guides belong on this Wiki - it seems as though they are trying to detract attention and/or traffic from this one to their own. I understand you are a member of the fansite that runs this wiki, but I don't think thats an excuse. It's the same user adding them time and time again, so I see no reason not to remove them time and time again. Trust me, they are not adding them to be helpful - they are adding them to make their wiki more popular and get traffic to their "family" of sites. You are right, some of them are useful, but most are not. Again, I see no problem just keeping the official game site as the one and only external link until something else comes about that is not a fansite or another wiki.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.152.80 (talk • contribs) 17:34, March 15, 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that there is a strong precedence on other game-related articles to allow a few fan sites of reasonably good quality in the external links. I'm not advocating including every site on the web, but of the sites that have been added to the external links lately, this one is the best; it was certainly better than the others which you initially left in the article. What resources are you expecting to appear for this game other than fan sites? One of the purposes of adding links to fan sites, as I said, is to provide detailed information that does not belong in this article. That is why fan sites are used in external links in a number of wikipedia articles. Why are you so adamantly against this one?
- I don't see any other discussion of external links on this talk page, so I'm not sure what you meant by that, but I'm asking you to assume good faith here. How do you know that they're not trying to be helpful? Why should I "trust you;" do you have some information that I'm not privy to? I've been an admin on wikipedia for just over a year and I have over 10,000 edits. I've seen my share of spam. Not every person who adds an external link is a spammer -- Vary | Talk 20:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
See the "removal of useful links" section above to understand what I'm talking about. I left the Freewebs and StrategyWiki links in and removed these because they are not looking to get traffic for their "family" of sites. As far as I know both sites were advertisement-free (I did review them) and DOW was not. I noticed a repeating pattern of "For more information or questions, see here..." which has been my entire point all along. I have nothing against either of these sites (I do not participate in any VMK-related fansites) and I do not wish to harm them at all. If we could redirect to a certain article for more information, that would be fine, but I do not think that redirecting to a generalization of sites is acceptable. Look at the history, and you'll see that the same people are adding these links back time and time again. It's the same person, and only up until recently has a "new" person begun to add the link back when it is removed. These people are also "avid" goers of the fansite they are linking back to as I am told. I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree because you are the Wiki admin, and I am not. Also, it seems someone has added another link to the Freewebs site under another link title. I will let you decide what you want to do with it, remove it or leave it. 24.178.152.80 00:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to add that I have thought about it overnight and I agree that DOW should stay on the EL section; however, there seems to be no useful information whatsoever about the game on the last two links that DOW does not have, so I have removed it. I do not think it makes a difference whether or not I remove it, because they tag right along after me and add it again, which is another issue that needs to be adressed. How can we protect this page from further vandalism? I think if we did the account-only protection, it may put a stop to the vandalism and further pinpoint the people who are doing it. 24.178.152.80 14:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
From what I have seen on the DOW site, it is being used to direct traffic to VMKforums, Toontown Central, and PiratesOnlineForums which charges members to join. I do not see any difference in this and any other fansite. I do not think it is right to allow some fan sites, but not others. If all the sites contain the same information then they should all be allowed or none at all. Just my 2 cents.
DOW will stay and all directly-linked fansites will go. I think we've beat this horse enough. As long as Aficionada or whoever else keeps adding links to their poorly maintained free-forum based sites, they will be removed. 24.178.152.80 12:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)