Talk:FunOrb/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Any Objections To Archiving This Page?

Does anyone have any problems with me archiving the old/dead discussions on this page?

Items that I think are good to archive are

Criticisms? notability? Wiki WP:VG Assessment Screenshot I am new too all this editing, i just started arcanists "Current Games" section Nominated for deletion

To avoid repeats of 'popular' conversation I'd put in links to the deletion results etc

That cool with everyone?FlashNerdX (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC).

Criticisms?

I think this page is a bit biased and needs criticisms to remain neutral. For instance, I find it odd that no one has addressed the low popularity of funorb and mentioned the argument of better, free games on the internet, etc.

Are there any quotes from any reputable gaming sources? Duct tape tricorn (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe the article is fine as it is. The site may not be the most visited on the internet and may have lower traffic than say Miniclip, but it's popular enough for it to warrant a place in this encyclopedia (See the delete discussion below). Better free games is a matter of opinion, and is disputable, please see WP:NPOV. ۩ Dracion ۩ ✎ ✉ 16:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that's why Tricorn asked if there was any reputable sources from gaming sites. PeterA (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If any decent sources can be found then put them in, however I've had a look and all I can find is people arguing about it in fan forums / gaming forums. No usable crit from a reliable source on either it having a low popularity or there being better games available, anything else would be original research or opinion, and both of those are now allowed.. Sorry FlashNerdX (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"Now allowed", FlashNerdX? Surely that's a typo, unless some monumentous event occured and I missed it?
But seriously, he's right. Forums are not reliable sources. We can't have a section for criticisms of FunOrb unless reliable sources are found (I think they will appear as the site's popularity grows, though). 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
typo, sorryFlashNerdX (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

notability?

  • Why is this not notable? Its the launch of a new product by a major company in the MMO industry.

FlashNerdX (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree. There has been quite a lot of hype and article regarding the release of this game, so I don't see why this should be deleted. Google returns a lot of results, and there's been much discussion on RuneScape related fansites. ۩ Dracion (Level 89 Rs Player) ۩ 16:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Considering it's a new product launch by the maker of the 3rd most played PC game in the world, I would say that this is a fairly notable site.Mogglewump —Preceding comment was added at 16:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I completely agree, considering their other product, RuneScape, has already so many customers, I don't think it will take long for this new site to become really popular.--81.172.59.131 (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The article was tagged for notability concerns shortly after it had been created. At the time, there were no references at all, and none that asserted notability. Now, however, I see enough notability to pass speedy deletion. Do be aware, however, that this does not preclude proposed deletions or a full review for deletion. seresin | wasn't he just...? 00:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I Disagree with its notability. Just because a major company has released it doesn't make it notable, and its not exactly making headlines. They're millions of sites just like these, and we can't make an article over every one. I would merge this article into Jagex. Warrush 22:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it is sufficiently notable for its own article - and yes, it has made it onto a fair number of news websites. It is the second major release from one the UK's largest independent developer by staff level, and they intend to go into the mobile phone games market meaning the brand is greater than for just a gaming arcade. It is also interesting because of it uses underlying Java technology as opposed to the more common Flash. I think the article has a fair amount of room for expansion, such as more detailed information on games, more history and information from interviews and more games as they re released. If we merged it with the Jagex article then it'd probably soon have to be split anyway. --RS Ren (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wiki

There's a FunOrb wiki. Do with it what you will. 90.212.82.155 (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Added ۩ Dracion ۩ Talk 09:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:VG Assessment

This article was recently flagged for WP:VG Assessment. I know the game has only recently been published and so there's not an awful lot of information out there, but it could really benefit from being expanded and given further detail. I'd suggest trying to expand under the following categories:

  • Gameplay - how does the game actually work? Do you have all different games available, or do you unlock games as you progress? What kind of structure and progression is there? With online play, do you play cooperatively or compete against eachother? Are competitions free-for-all or teambased?
  • Plot/Story - Is there anything behind the collection of minigames? Is there a game universe or story that links them all together?
  • Development - How was the idea for the game concieved? What decisions did the developers make that influenced the end product? What preview information was reported on in magazines/online sources?
  • Reception - How has the game been recieved by the public and critics alike? Are there any reviews/comments/scores that you can cite?

I know it's early, but I think that by fleshing it out along these headings to inform whoever's reading this article what FunOrb is all about and why it exists, it could become a good article. With some good sources to back you up, it should be fine.

Hope this helps! Gazimoff (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The games aren't linked to each other in any way. There's no meta-universe for all the games to be in. FunOrb is just the website, not a fantasy realm or anything. I don't know of any reviews or anything like that. Hope that helped. 90.212.120.86 (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Screenshot

I've added a screenshot, as requested, but I had no idea where to put it because there's no large body of text on the page that I can stick it in. For now I've put it next to the table under Current Games. If you think it should go somewhere else then go ahead and move it ۩ Dracion ۩ Talk 17:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd go with that for now, as it can be moved later when more content is available. As a suggestion, you might want to look at other minigame-based articles such as Mario Party 8 and Rayman Raving Rabbids for ideas on how you can expand content beyond what is currently here, although I'm aware that neither contain a screenshot. Gazimoff (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I am new too all this editing, i just started

I added a bit i was wondering if you guys could edit it and make it look better, adding more screen shots would help i dont know how to do it myself —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaosquall1 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think with the current page content we've got enough content, however feel free to upload an image. You'll want to read Wikipedia:Images before you do though, this will tell you about copyright, how to upload etc. ۩ Dracion ۩ Talk 19:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

FunOrb in the media

Have I missed anything? --RS Ren (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

External links

The site "FunOrbworld" does not appear to have been updated recently. A quick look through the forums shows that there has been some difficulties finding someone to run the site, and it is not likely to return to a sensible update schedule. I would recommend replacing it with the suggested-and-removed link to planet funorb (http://planetfunorb.com/), on the grounds that it appears to be a more useful resource. -- 81.102.133.143 (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've had a think about it, and I reckon that at the moment there isn't the need for any fansites, mainly because there is so much the need for them. Until there's evidence of a large fansite which is dedicated to FunOrb with a member base of several hundreds (if not thousands) of members, then I doubt there's any need to include anything but a link to the FunOrb Wikia. ۩ Dracion ۩ ✎ ✉ 16:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

There are a few FunOrb fansites at the moment, and a few have some potential. FunOrb is quickly growing larger and the foundation for fansites will continue to grow. I think just listing fansites, considering the lack of them, would not be bad, and instead add to the article.

FunOrb World Planet FunOrb OrbMore Arcanists.net

These are the fansites I am aware of.

Papeh (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just reverted someone twice for trying to insert a fansite in to the article, and referred them to the talk page. We need to keep a firm lid on how many sites, and which ones, we allow to be put into the article - just listing every fansite around is a magnet for spam, and Wikipedia is not a link farm. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion

I have put this up for deletion, as I don't believe it is notable. There are literally millions of game sites just like this, and even if a big company releases it, it doesn't make it notable, and fails wikipedias notability guideline. I believe this article should be either deleted or merged into Jagex. Warrush 22:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, we should Keep the article. Yes there are many sites which provide games like these, however this one in paticular was hyped quite a bit on several internet communities before its release. What the article really needs is a cleanup, it lacks citations. A google search for FunOrb returns several media and fansite related reviews and articles. I don't believe it would be right to delete this article. This should really go to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Deletion for a proper discussion though. ۩ Dracion ۩ ✎ ✉ 09:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Where have you put it up for deletion? --RS Ren (talk) 11:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The Only place notable that i've seen it hyped on is runescape, and for obvious reasons. Also, if you actually go into the other sites, they're runescape fansites, not funorb. Warrush 18:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Note: The AfD entry is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FunOrb --RS Ren (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
On the article page, you just need to click on this articles entry, it will redirect you to the page. Warrush

Delete The article lacks sources, lacks criticism, and if it gets a place here then ALL game websites should, which isn't going to happen. PeterA (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

perhaps it would be best if we all gave this article some time to grow. besides, funorb got linked up with runescape this year. give it time to grow more before deleting it.--Hawkey131 (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: The discussion has been closed, and the result is to KEEP. I know it says it at the top, but for those who didn't notice it there, it's also here. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"Current Games" section

Is this section notable? Could it constitute a manual? (WP:NOT#manual). 77.97.57.132 (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

arcanists

I have created an arcanists heading. This is my first time so be easy. It may not be perfect but someone is free to enhance it.Lucas8k (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

And I have to tell you I've removed it. It's nice to see you want to help, but what you put in was unsourced and very game-guidey, something articles are not supposed to be. Sorry about that. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
sorry this was my first time editing.Lucas8k (talk) 11:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
That's okay; I try not to bite. If you can find sources and expand the article, please do. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Player Development

Hello,

I'm the creator of the Player Development section, I just wanted to say that although it's against Jagex's rules to name a player without permission we're allowed to add Hard Powered. Firstly, I am the player Hard Powered and secondly the players names are stated in the Forum Specific Rules of the Billing Orb of which I have linked to.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by RuneScapezadmin (talk • contribs) 15:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As has been pointed out before we have no way of knowing if you are Hard Powered, as such that part of your argument is irrelevant. Having said that I see no reason why, as it is from a publicly available and reliable source, the name can't be included. The link used to verify the fact it happened has the name so not putting it in the article is somewhat silly, and as it is the first time for such a thing to happen with Jagex I believe gains notability within the context of the article. FlashNerdX (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Humf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RuneScapezadmin (talk • contribs) 20:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Jagex rules do not apply to Wikipedia. --RS Ren (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
You're all meanies. 86.167.10.200 (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, yes we are. And here is our meanie stick: Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines.FlashNerdX (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

New Fansite

There is a new growing website on the web, Orbmore.com

On the website's chatbox, we discussed adding the link to Wikipedia's FunOrb page. This is a proposal for the idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenth Attack (talk • contribs) 21:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I really doubt adding fansites to the external links is a good idea right now. This article has already been contested for deletion on the grounds that it wasn't notable enough (See the notice at the top), and because of this I doubt adding a fansite is really necessary. Also, the FunOrb wikia is a good an external link as any at the moment. I can't see anything else providing any more information about the site than that does. ۩ Dracion ۩ ✎ ✉ 10:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Adding to that, a google search for FunOrb returns several more popular fansites, so I don't see why this one should be included. ۩ Dracion ۩ ✎ ✉ 10:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That is true, but many players on FunOrb are looking to be a part of growing fansites, such as Orbmore. I was one of them, as were a few of my friends. I don't see the harm in adding it, as the website contains no racial, sexual, obscene, or offending in any way content, and it is a player's choice whether they want to go there or not. So there is really no negatives in adding it, only positives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenth Attack (talk • contribs) 14:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't just mean you can add it in, though, hence why it's been removed AGAIN. The hidden comment clearly says not to add fansites without discussion - meaning there needs to be consensus on the issue (one editor does not equal consensus).
As I stated in the "External Links" section, a firm grip needs to be kept on which fansite(s) to include, and how many. Wikipedia is not here to advertise your fansite, or to be a link farm. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I can clearly see that's inoffensive, that's not really a valid argument for inclusion within the article itself. You may think it only adds to the article, but as I said, the Wikia contains pretty much all the information anyone else really needs on the game. Sure, you can argue that a forum or such is better, but then yours is hardly the most popular out of all the fansites there. Also, 1ForTheMoney has pretty much summed up what I would say. Fansites need to be regulated. As an example, it's come up time and time again on the RuneScape article, with many discussions on the talk page, going through several changes to the way the list has been done. It's why the hidden comment is there.
Also, not to sound nasty, but if you add it in again within the next 24 hours, you'll be in violation of the 3 revert rule.۩ Dracion ۩ ✎ ✉ 15:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


Sorry, however I've never edited Wikipedia before, therefore I may not be doing this right. May I ask, what must be done before a Fansite is added to the External Links? If a new fansite began, and was VERY relevant to the website at hand, would it be added? I mean, the website in question (FunOrb) is a fast growing site, do you not agree that it would be suitable to add a link in for people to gain knowledge about the site? <-- Matthew —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.239.84 (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The main issue is that Wikipedia is neither a link-farm nor somewhere to advertise your site. There must be a firm consensus, agreed by multiple editors, on how many links to include, and which links to include. Because no consensus currently exists, the safest option is to have no links. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, that discussion happened a while ago, now let's revive it. OrbMore is extremely larger, and is arguably the biggest FunOrb fansite out there. While it is not in the Alexa Top 100,000, I think it deserves to be mentioned in the article. I'm pretty new to editing Wikipedia, but would it be possible to have a vote on adding the link in? Tacos Please (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Orb Defence link

When I clicked on the Orb Defence link in the game name's category for Funorb, I was brought to a completely different game (Tower Defence). Can someone please fix this because I don't know how to do that yet. Thank you. Rob657 (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Rob657

That's supposed to happen, because Orb Defence and Tower Defence have some similarities, so the article links there. If you were thinking of creating a new article, Note that it's probably best NOT to create articles on individual FunOrb games (they have no notability outside of FO). 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it should link there. Just because gameplay is related doesn't mean it is affliated with Funorb. Rob657 (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Rob657

It's not meant to imply that the linked games are affilated with FunOrb in any way. It's used when a FunOrb item is based on another well-known game. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

New Fansite

I realize this has been brought up before, for the exact same website, but I believe that it now has a better position to be on the Wikipedia Article. Since I last brought this up, http://orbmore.com has improved greatly; they now have IPB forums, a completely new website design, a much bigger fanbase, an achievement database, and more. And no doubt, it will expand greatly soon. Therefore, I think it has earned the right to have a spot on the article, so that users can use it for their own benefit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.182.213 (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, I'm not prepared to endorse this proposal (especially because that fansite isn't even in the top 100,000 ranks on Alexa). If we let 1 fansite in, it opens a precedent that won't be easily closed. Other fansites will demand a spot as well.
Note also that arguments like "It's well designed", "It has lots of members", "It's big" have no place in this discussion. Wikipedia doesn't make judgements of quality.
Note: You may also want to look a couple of sections up. The last attempt to slot this site in was shot down in no time. If it's true that other fansites are more popular, they may have more of a claim than you do. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Are summaries okay?

I have an idea. Why not have a little summary of each game instead? That way all the info can stay on this page and without creating a whole bunch of seperate articles on the games. Plus, we would be able to expand this article this way. Anyone disagree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.119.106 (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I've split this into its own section, since this makes it easier to track discussions.
As for your idea, it's true that having seperate articles for each game is a bad idea (they'd be deleted for not having independent notability). I have no strong opinion on brief descriptions, only that they must be kept brief and not be turned into full-blown guides. Adding more words is not always the best way to expand an article. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

So just to be sure, it wouldn't be deleted if someone were to put in brief descriptions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.119.106 (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm only one person, remember; my opinions do not necessarily reflect the larger community. Since this could border on being too game-guidey, and I have a tendency to nuke that sort of material, I'd prefer to hold off with this suggestion until more people chip in (assuming they do, of course. This article doesn't get the attention it needs to grow and develop.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
On the pro-side it would make things more informative and the article less "dry", on the anti-side though they have a lot of games so it would get messy and over complicated really quickly. How about just doing descriptions on a couple of the key games then have an 'other games' section? I would suggest Arcanists, Armies of Gielinor, Bouncedown, Brick-À-Brac, Deko Bloko, Dungeon Assault, Miner Disturbance, Orb Defence, Torquing!, Wizard Run, and Zombie Dawn for the 'signature games' as they are the more innovative of the collection and/or have had characters from the games used in promotional materials.FlashNerdX (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I can agree to that, but not that many games - limit it to 3 or 4, or however many is suitable. I'm thinking Arcanists (which is popular), Dungeon Assault (the only persistent-world game in FunOrb, IIRC), and perhaps a couple of others. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Those plus Zombie Dawn (for the amount of updates/seperate game) and KickAbout (for the beta test)?FlashNerdX (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Weekly updates

I don't believe that the part about a update (either a game or a website feature) is accurate any longer, as they've switched to a "Quality over quantity" approach. I'm new to the Wiki, so I wont mess with anything, but I'm pretty sure that's inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.19.140.70 (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It's actually fortnightly, according to the given source - so unless that source changes, or a more recent reliable source (so, not a forum post) counters it, I wouldn't be inclined to change it.
As for messing with anything, be bold and give it a try! If you mess up, it's usually pretty easy to fix. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FunOrb/Archive_1&oldid=1136352505"