Jump to content

Talk:The Club (Nickelodeon)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheNewPhobia (talk | contribs) at 00:42, 12 December 2008 (→nicktropolis news: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeThe Club (Nickelodeon) was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 9, 2006WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
October 6, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
September 13, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
October 30, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Template:Wikiproject Nickelodeon

WikiProject iconVideo games Redirect‑class
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
RedirectThis redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Games Section

I think we need to build out a games section with all the games you can play inside Nicktropolis. --Charlie Allnut 03:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You tried it, and it's been removed. JONJONBT talk•homemade userboxes 01:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please Note - All the other MMOG's targeted to kids have a games section. Look at Club Penguin's Article. They list all the Mini-Games. Look at VMK's Article. They list games too. I'm following their lead on what to include into the Nicktropolis article. Charlie Allnut Spongebob Carnival Games? Tak85 22:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Tak85[reply]
Yes, but you are failing to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:ADVERT. I reccommend you read those. J (T•C) 15:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch all that. The games section is what we were looking for now.
Cheers, 23:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

MMORPG?

I thought Nicktropolis was just an MMOG. I didn't know it had roleplay. GKMorse 00:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It kinda is since you transform into a certain look based on the Nicktoon show that you're in (like a fish in Bikini Bottom). --SpongeSebastian 03:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or a juju in Pupunuunuu Village? Tak85 20:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Tak85[reply]

"BackPack" Launches?

Where is this BackPack? i don't see it KanuT 17:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the new my backpack button. Tak85 20:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Tak85[reply]

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of October 2, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Bloated lists that could be merged into the article proper vastly overwhelm the article's short prose. The explicitly named WP:TRIVIA section and the rest of the massive bulleted lists all warrant review and attempts to merge them into the article proper. Some of the changes should be fairly simple - For instance, the unsourced population note in the Trivia section is duplicated above in the article. If there's a press release to back up the newer, larger number, it should be trivial to replace the earlier, smaller number.
3. & 4. Broad in coverage & NPOV?: Lacks adequate third party coverage to demonstrate neutrality and breadth of coverage.
5. Article stability? Considerable recent growth requires review per point one.
6. Images?: Few present, although understandable that few free images can be obtained.


When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment. Thank you for your work so far. MrZaiustalk 17:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on it. Cheers, Jonathan t - c 00:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per item #6 they do have an image gallery up on the site: http://www.nick.com/nicktropolis/image/ - Charlie Allnut —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie allnut (talk • contribs) 16:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see our Wikipedia:Fair use guidelines before adding them, though - aside from teh logo for the site, few Fair use images are likely to be usable, barrign third party commentary thereon. Item #6 was the least important member of the list, given that very few GFDL/public domain images from Nicktroplis can be expected to exist. MrZaiustalk 16:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

See top of page. Cheers, Jonathan t - c 01:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Backpack Mixing

Does anyone know some ingredients to make spells or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.61.253.99 (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zones in the Article

I propose we treat all the zones like we are doing with Nicktoons Blvd. There are so many other rooms and zones in the none Nick brand areas. I think we should expose those in the same format. Or conversely change the Nicktoons BLVD section in the article to match the other section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie allnut (talk • contribs) 17:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Nominee.

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, compares against the six good article criteria:

*Well written?:

  1. lead sections
  2. layout
  3. jargon
  4. words to avoid
  5. fiction
  6. list incorporation
  • Broad in coverage?: This article is broad in coverage
  • Neutral point of view?: The article counts on a very good neutral point of view.
  • Stability of the article?: Not the subject of any recent or on-going edit wars.
  • Images?: The deficiency of images is not a step/criteria of fall. Anyway, the images have a very good quality and a Fair Use Rationale template.
  • Comment: In many ways, this is almost a good article. The illustrations are well-chosen, and the information is well-cited. The writing style is - except for the words to avoid and the {{Cleanup|date=November 2007}} - clear and well-written.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note below showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Macys123, 18:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan has asked me to come here even though Macys was just doing the review a few hours before he lodged a request on my talk page. I don't want to step on any toes, but if I was in the position of reviewing this article, it would fail strongly because of a lack of citations, lead and specific FU paperwork for the photos. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Providing yet another opinion, this article doesn't even come close to the Good Article criteria. Maybe with respect to the stability criteria, but that's really about it. A brief summary of some of the issues includes:

  • The lead section does not provide an adequate summary of the article (it's way too short). Recommend taking a look at WP:LEAD.
  • Insufficient citations. Most of the article is without any source whatsoever. The references are formatted according to WP:CITE, however, so that's a plus. But there's still a whole lot of WP:OR in here, and citations are needed for any unsourced information.
  • There's several dates in the article that are not formatted in accordance with the manual of style. Full dates should be wikilinked, so that they work with user's date preferences. As an additional note, single years and month/day combinations should not be wikilinked.
  • What's the purpose of the 'criticism' section; it's far too short, and doesn't really say anything. The only source is a forum site? Hello, WP:RS?
  • The 'Places' section; this is really not written very well at all. First, it's just a collection of mainly list items with very short descriptions, probably copyvios from the original website anyway. Secondly, it's very confusing with all of the 2nd and 3rd and 4th level headings, and all of these headings are very long, making the table of contents very difficult to read. Section headers should be short and concise, and provide a good 3-4 word summary of the section as a whole. Wikilinks also should not be used within section headers. Please see WP:MSH for tips here.
  • 'Integration of NickPoints'; WTF? Not sure of the purpose of this section to the article. It's unsourced, so fails WP:V, and the section header title is a violation of WP:MSH.
  • 'Message boards'; Not much purpose to this section either. It's really written like an advertisement to the message boards, and just not very interesting. There's no sources or citations.
  • As an additional note, all of the images are non-free, fair-use images. While there is a fair-use rationale, it would be nice of the article had some free images in it. Although this might not be possible for a video game article.

As it stands, I'd probably grade this article as Start-class. It has quite a way to go before GA-class. Dr. Cash 06:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say per above, as Dr Cash took the time to write things out properly. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I fix these issues, I am marking my progress by adding {{fixed}}, so I can see what I've done and what I still need to do. Bye! JONATHAN Go green! 23:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Club Penguin

The article on Club Penguin seems to be similar in topic to Nicktropolis. The contributing editors might want to get some ideas from it. However, both articles seem to be Start Class. I suggest that the contributing editors look through the list of GA video games - Wikipedia:Good articles#Video games - and find one that is similar to Nicktropolis. For example, perhaps Eragon (video game) is similar. I think the editors will notice areas in Nicktropolis that could be worked on by the comparison. The editors might want to work on Club Penguin and Nicktropolis at the same time because it sometimes helps: when stuck for what to do in one, you can work on the other. Anyway, the editors seem really motivated so good luck and good work. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 17:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2nd GA review

Quick-failing for lack of verifiability. Besides, some of last review's problems have yet to be adressed:

  • There are several dates in the article that are not formatted in accordance with the manual of style. Full dates should be wikilinked, so that they work with user's date preferences. As an additional note, single years and month/day combinations should not be wikilinked.
  • Insufficient citations.
  • The lead section does not summarise the whole article.

Also:

  • "Comparison" and "In the news" are 100% WP:WEASEL.
  • The references are not all in the same format.
  • The "Places" section is written like a list, you should either expand each section (maybe explaining what happens on each stage?) or try and merge it all in a couple of paragraphs.
Please take a look at Guide to writing better articles and What is a good article? before renominating. Thanks for your work so far.  :) -Yamanbaiia (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Places Section

There are no refs...I've searched pretty much everywhere. The only possible ref would be the game; and the exact links for each room are very difficult to find. So, for now...we'll just have to try and see where we end up with testing the "nav=*" links. JonathanT•@•C 17:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Working on spoken article...

I'm working on a spoken article for this, it may be finished today or tomorrow. Thanks! —Jonathan 00:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delayed a bit. —Jonathan 01:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aliens

As a child, I sometimes use Nicktropolis. And I am currently very dissapointed of the person who created that page for not updating what the Floops have done to the Nicktropolis on Earth.

Pumagirl7 (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't for general discussion. Please use the message boards at Nick.com. Sorry! Jonathan 02:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Child Feedback

Well, I am a member of Nick Online, and viewing the official forums, I see a lot of kids complaining. And this is probably just the tip of the iceburg, as the forums are mod-previewed (Nick employees view the posts before being put up and don't feature anything innapropriate or presumably criticizing Nick). Kids are demanding the Dictionary be taken off, saying that it simply is missing many vital words (eg. Crystal). Not sure if this allowed under Wikipedia's policies, but this probably should be mentioned. What do you think? Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. Jon How's the weather? - talk about me behind my back 23:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nicktropolis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am failing this page, as it seems much too short and unreferenced.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this. GAs don't have a specific length. Have a look at Jeanne Calment which passed recently. That's shorter than this one. Normally, it's a good idea to find things in the article that could be improved and give the nominator a chance to improve them. The references seems plentiful as well. What's going on here? I might give this one a review myself later. how do you turn this on 15:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant there does not seem to be enough information.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re

Here's a breakdown of where this is on the GA criteria:

  • Well written
Thumbs up icon Yes. Chronologically correct in history section, smooth, etc.
  • Factually accurate and verifiable
Thumbs up icon At least one ref in each section, up to 5 in one section
  • Broad in coverage
Thumbs up icon Yes, read note below.
Note: To the person who failed this on that criterion: If you've actually been in the game before, you'll realize this isn't nearly as big or popular as Club Penguin and Virtual Magic Kingdom, so it's kind of like a bigger person, in general, can eat more food than a skinny person. This is almost as much content we can have without failing the verifiability criterion.
  • Neutral
Thumbs up icon Yes, NPOV is completely undisputed.
  • Stable
Thumbs up icon Only occasional vandalism, which is reverted almost instantly, thus not affecting the stability of the article.
  • Illustrated, if possible, by images
Thumbs up icon Yes, but only fair use images. Free images are practically impossible to find for a copyrighted game.

This article has very few flaws, and should be passed as a GA. the event horizon (t • c) 19:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside comments from Someone another

Sorry but I'm not seeing a C-class article here let alone a suitable GA candidate. There's at least one whopping gap in information and a lot of the text is meaningless to an information gatherer. Some observations:

  • There is no reception section. That isn't a slight problem it's a fatal flaw and would stop most videogame project members from rating this above start, let alone go anywhere else.
  • Even though it is a website, would the videogame project's infobox not be more suitable? Regardless of whether it's a flashgame, a browsergame or whatever, it's still a videogame.
  • There's a couple of tweaks needed in the citations, such as author name missing, a press release needs citing as one etc.

History

  • The majority of this section is dangerously close to being proseline.
  • "Construction of Nicktropolis began in November 2004," 'Development' would sit better than construction.
  • "Nickelodeon's developers Mark Zadroga, Alex Westerman, Deborah Levine, Patrick Dorey, Sean McEvoy, and Jason Root," So who are these people? What are their roles? Their backgrounds? This is just a collection of forenames and surnames with no actual information.
  • "using the TheoSDK and TheoAvatarSDK engines.[6][3] The game was launched in early 2006, and it had no advertising." A reader who doesn't eat and sleep games is not going to have a clue what a TheoSDK engine is. The only acutal information out of all this is that development began in Nov. 2004 and the game was released in early 2006.
  • "On June 24, 2007, the game was featured in The New York Times, with a quote stating, "Pre-teenage viewers have a virtual playground to call their own." [8]" It's a throw-away quote anyway, is that all the article actually says about NT? Does it belong in history?
  • 'Release history' does not contain enough bulk to warrant a sub-heading, what's there could be integrated with the other information.

Places

  • Either this should be a gameplay section and actually contain gameplay data, or the gameplay section is completely missing and this is a separate section altogether.
  • This falls into the classic trap (which virtually everyone falls into, I have too) of listing all of the elements of a particular aspect of a game rather than actually explaining what this all means. The vast majority of it is name-dropping which a reader can safely forget about instantly because they are given very little context.
  • For instance: "The area is divided into 7 subsections, the first being the SpongeBob SquarePants area (Bikini Bottom) includes 7 rooms, which are the General Store, the Krusty Krab, The Reef, Conch Street, which is a portal to SpongeBob's house, Patrick's house, and Squidward's house." General store is fairly self-explanatory, but what's the Krusty Krab for? What do players do at The Reef? What happens when players visit Squidward? Actual information is needed, not empty lists.
  • There's a lot of very short paragraphs here which could be condensed (though substantial rewriting is needed IMO, not just a little tidy-up), along with some more sub-headings with very little content.

Sponsorship

  • The large chunk of quote could just as easily be summarized in contributors' own words.
  • Doesn't this belong in history?

So in the big picture: of the three major sections which virtually all video game articles should contain (gameplay, development/history and reception), two are missing entirely and one contains relatively little suitable info (history). One of the further sections needs a major overhaul (places) and the other could probably do with merging (sponsorship). Realistically this isn't a GA candidate, it would be unfair to expect the article's contributors to do this kind of work within a week. The videogame project's peer reviews and assessment dept. are there if further advice is needed and I'd heartily recommend them. Someoneanother 10:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've got my wires crossed and posted this on a long-dead GA review, will tweak and cross post to a new GA review. Someoneanother 15:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nicktropolis/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I commented on the previous GA attempt, but made a schoolboy error and didn't check the dates, for some reason I believed there was an ongoing conversation there. I'm quick-failing Nicktropolis because there are several large gaps in the article, substantial expansion and rewriting is needed, it is currently a well-cited start-class article. Turning it around in a short timeframe would be needlessly taxing and an unrealistic goal.

Here's some suggestions:

  • There is no reception section, there is at least one review cited in the article already and I'm sure more could be found to make up the numbers and provide critique. Without reviews a video game article isn't really neutrally balanced.
  • Even though NT is based at a website, it's still a videogame and the videogame infobox contains many useful fields for data which are not in the website infobox.
  • There's a couple of tweaks needed in the citations, such as author name missing, a press release needs citing as one etc.
  • Several of the examples below focus on the article doing a lot of talking but not actually saying much. Describing the way everything works from a more distant view informs the reader, adding loads of named 'things' (whether they're numerous incidental characters, locations, items or whatever) without actually giving a reason for them being mentioned means that the focus is too zoomed-in. A few examples works fine when they're properly explained.

History

  • The majority of this section is dangerously close to being proseline.
  • "Construction of Nicktropolis began in November 2004," 'Development' would sit better than construction.
  • "Nickelodeon's developers Mark Zadroga, Alex Westerman, Deborah Levine, Patrick Dorey, Sean McEvoy, and Jason Root," So who are these people? What are their roles? Their backgrounds? This is just a collection of forenames and surnames with no actual information.
  • "using the TheoSDK and TheoAvatarSDK engines.[6][3] The game was launched in early 2006, and it had no advertising." A reader who doesn't eat and sleep games is not going to have a clue what a TheoSDK engine is, who developed it? If you have no details about the engine then there's a field for it in the videogame infobox. The only acutal information out of all this is that development began in Nov. 2004 and the game was released in early 2006.
  • "On June 24, 2007, the game was featured in The New York Times, with a quote stating, "Pre-teenage viewers have a virtual playground to call their own." [8]" It's a throw-away quote anyway, is that all the article actually says about NT? Does it belong in history?
  • 'Release history' does not contain enough bulk to warrant a sub-heading, what's there could be integrated with the other information.

Places

  • Either this should be a gameplay section and actually contain gameplay data, or the gameplay section is completely missing and this is a separate section altogether.
  • This falls into the classic trap (which virtually everyone falls into, I have too) of listing all of the elements of a particular aspect of a game rather than actually explaining what this all means. The vast majority of it is name-dropping which a reader can safely forget about instantly because they are given very little context.
  • For instance: "The area is divided into 7 subsections, the first being the SpongeBob SquarePants area (Bikini Bottom) includes 7 rooms, which are the General Store, the Krusty Krab, The Reef, Conch Street, which is a portal to SpongeBob's house, Patrick's house, and Squidward's house." General store is fairly self-explanatory, but what's the Krusty Krab for? What do players do at The Reef? What happens when players visit Squidward? Actual information is needed, not empty lists. Try to zoom out and put these different areas in context.
  • There's a lot of very short paragraphs here which could be condensed (though substantial rewriting is needed IMO, not just a little tidy-up), along with some more sub-headings with very little content.

Sponsorship

  • The large chunk of quote could just as easily be summarized in contributors' own words.
  • Doesn't this belong in history?

What I'd suggest doing is:

  • Focus on providing solid development (history), gameplay and reception sections. These are the guts of the article and the ones which video game GAs should all have.
  • Hammer places into shape, step back from list-list-listing everything and remembering the 'point' of the section, to let readers know what they would expect to find and how these things can be interacted with.
  • Utilize the videogame project's peer review and assessment departments, if you get stuck and need further advice then you can always ask on the project's talk page.
  • Have a good look at video game GAs, particularly any MMOs, take a look at how their gameplay/history/reception sections are filled out.

Hope this is of some help to you, thank you for what you've done with the article. Someoneanother 15:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from TheNewPhobia

I'm working on a complete rewrite here. I'm heeding by these tips in the writing... The New Phobia (formerly Jonathan) 19:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nicktropolis news

there is now a war going on nick. the battle is the autobots (my team)vs the desepicons that is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevor515 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this isn't a forum. Please use a real forum elsewhere. -phobia don't be afraid to drop a line! 00:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Club_(Nickelodeon)&oldid=257389931"