Misplaced Pages

Talk:Habbo

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Peglegpenguin (talk | contribs) at 03:53, 5 August 2007 (Just a suggestion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:53, 5 August 2007 by Peglegpenguin (talk | contribs) (Just a suggestion)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Template:TrollWarning

Post all threads about the raids UNDER the already existing "The Raids" header, instead of adding a new thread to the bottom. All other threads must be added to the bottom of the page.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 8, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
May 19, 2007WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
June 1, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
? view · edit FAQ
Q: Should I be putting information into the article that only Habbo users would be interested in?
A: No. No matter the number of users or the amount of users that actually visit this article, this is still an encyclopedia, not a user guide.
Q: May I put my opinion into the article?
A: No. As this is an encyclopedia, everything is to be written in a neutral point of view and thus do not push your opinion.
Q: Should I add lists of Moderators, Furniture or Habbo Xs?
A: No. Put yourself in the article reader's position. You wouldn't need to know everything.
Q: Should I refer to people who use Habbo as "Habbos", "Players" or "Users".
A: Users. You should refer to people who use Habbo as Users as they are using a service.

citations.

Template:WP1.0

Template:WP MMOG

WikiProject iconVideo games B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Misplaced Pages. 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
BThis article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks
AfDs Merge discussions Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Good article nominations DYK nominations Reviews and reassessments
Articles that need...
This article was nominated for deletion on 20 January, 2007. The result of the discussion was speedy WP:SNOW keep.
Archiving icon
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

yes]


The Raids

I just don't understand how the fact that people from 4chan and ytmnd teaming up to block the pool, standing in the shape of Swastigas and spouting phrases such as "Pool's closed, due to AIDS!" is not relevant or notable to an article on Habbo Hotel. After all, they caused Habbo Hotel.com to close for an hour, anyone dressed in the raid uniforms will be kicked from the pool and it is, pretty much common knowledge. They've got www.poolsclosed.com and there was even a hacking tool produced. Please, just include it in the article! --212.139.56.94 19:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have read the archives above, you would see the perfectly valid reasons why the raids have not been included in the article. If you want to know the short answer to why the raids aren't included, it is simply because they are not notable not verifiable. –Spebi 05:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe not noteworthy, but definitely lulzworthy. --161.253.47.99 06:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Spebi, the argument doesn't hold water anymore. Lots and lots of people have been asking why it is not a part of the article, and saying that it is not notable contradicts the very basis of their arguments, for if they were not notable, no one would be talking about it.--WaltCip 10:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
It shut down the site today, the anniversary of the first raid. If you don't include these race riots this will CONTINUE to look like an advertisement. WHY no criticism of this site? Myahon 02:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess so - excuse my bad wording. My point was that I did not want to bring up this whole discussion again, because it had already been discussed thoroughly in the archives. –Spebi 11:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The main reason that we can't put the whole raids and *chan stuff into the article is because of this. As much as I can't stand Seicer and a couple of others being such a wet blanket about this subject, they do have a point. Lannah 23:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The Australian Habbo has changed their pool attendant to appear similar to the raiders by dressing him as an afro-man in a suit with the name AfroDuck (whom the raiders venerate). Example: http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/1215/64238680sq7.png . This is confirmable by visiting the hotel. Their attendant says things like "Pool's Open" and "What a clean pool!", direct responses to the slogans chanted by the raiders. Does this admission of impact on behalf of Habbo have an impact on notability? Gokustyle667 03:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
No it doesn't. Anyone could have edited that image, and it appears that you have edited it. ~Spebi 03:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Scratch that. After visiting the pool myself, I see that you are correct. ~Spebi 03:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not see why people wouldn't put the raids in the article. It is a well known thing to people who play and a warning to those interested in playing. Not adding it because it involves trolls or something bad would be supressing the truth. If every article was ran like this one is then you'd see the end of Misplaced Pages. Get rid of the Hot Coffee controversy on GTA SA. Get rid of the JFK conspiracy on his page. The raids can be verified, they are noteworthy because they happen frequently, and they are important to serve a warning to new players about trolls. SonnyCorleone 20:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Please please please read the archives Sonny, before posting about the raids again. Also, how can they be verified? So far we haven't found any legit sources. Lannah 22:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
"The raids can be verified" — By whom can they be verified by? And this article isn't just for new players, it's for anyone to read. Misplaced Pages is not a internet safety guide. The raids cannot be verified by any reliable source (regular players in the Hotel are not included), and so therefore will not included in the article. ~Spebi 22:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't the moderators of Habbo Hotel bannings trolls during the raids be counted as them recognizing the existance of raiding and marauding trolls upon the Habbo Hotel? Or does that not exist at all because it's only "members" that have screenshots of them happening? SonnyCorleone 00:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
This dicussion is dead. The Raids might have happened, but there is no reliable source to verify that it did happen. Nothing else needs to be said. ~Spebi 03:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. The trolls come back continuously to try to insert garbage for the sake of it being on the Internet. It's also a reason why its remained sprotected. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
So don't mention it because it's negative? Man, if logic like that was accepted in the real world... Hell, more than half the stuff on the wiki cannot be verified yet it has its own damn article and categories. Care to tell me why there is a page on Jesus? Can you verify that he exited as the son of God? Can you verify that a sucide attack in Iraq really killed 132 people the other day? The main page says at least one million people rallied in Turkey, can you verify that one million people were there? I can go on. Just because you do not like the idea of trolls attacking a game doesn't mean it cannot be mentioned. The Ebaumsworld page shows troll attacks...but Le Gasp! No verification that it was really DDoSed. Oh the humanity! Won't somebody think of the children? Do not let personal feelings get in the way. We all know that trolls attack the site, you know, I know, probably your grandmother does too. Stop pretending that you give a crap about verification rules. We all know you're only hiding behind them because you do not like trolls plundering the blissful Hotel of the Habbos. SonnyCorleone 02:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Since you are new here, here are a few pages to read up on --
*Citing sources: Those who have tried to include the "raids" fail to cite reliable sources. Others attempt it through vandalism.
*Verifiability: Those sources cannot be verified.
*Original research: Half of the crap that's been inserted has pretty much been up-in-the-air.
Hope this helps, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
It would seem you suffer from an oh too common disease called speaking and not listening. You claim to follow the Code of the Wiki but turn your back when it does not benefit you. Where is your valiant Crusade against the other links and articles I presented before you? Why aren't they being fixed? Do I sense bias in your decision that might taint your egotistical nobility? I see no such effort from you to right the wrongs and bring people to justice. I just see you, cite rules, rules that have no de facto control over articles. Yet for some reason you use this and only this as your main defense. In fact you haven't even acknowledged an argument from someone else, just spewing the same thing. I can only wonder in disbelief that you would contradict yourself in a twist of irony. Now tell me, why wouldn't links mentioned above not count? The image of the pool attendent dressed as, named, and quoting the raiders would be enough evidence to incriminate OJ Simpson. What about the Pool's Closed website and forum? Wouldn't its very existance hint as the possibility that it exists? Or is this just one large conspiracy that would make theorists wet themselves in fear? Suffice to say, sticking your head in the ground doesn't make problems disappear. So trying to do the same on the wiki won't work either. SonnyCorleone 03:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't attend all articles, that is what other editors are for. My time is limited and I only came to Habbo Hotel after it showed up on my vandalism listing numerous times after some raid. I only continued to stay after discovering other raids were in play. It has been accepted by other established editors that contribute to Misplaced Pages in a constructive manner (i.e. not vandal accounts or IPs) that the raids should stay off for the reasoning I cited above. The issue is so dead and moot that it is not worth dragging up whenever a new raid occurs.
In the future, please avoid personal remarks as they are generally frowned upon here at Misplaced Pages. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
If I made a personal remark it is only because you interpreted it that way by, once again, not reading properly. I only said that if what I claim is true then you would be seen in a negative view. But one cannot verify my claims on the hypothetical. I do not see a cite or a source, let alone a scholarly one. Now please tell me, why are raid mentionings allowed in the Ebaumsworld page, 4chan, YTMND, etc. but not here? Protect the victim but to hell with the attacker? And what about the Pool's Closed site? You have yet to comment on the conspiracy of the site not really existing and that all its alleged members can not be confirmed. I believe what you are doing now is a debate tactic. A very crude, primitive, and inefficent one. Ignore the opposition, state facts that vaguely have to do with the topic, and claim foul when things go aloof. Know this, and only this if you choose, facts, sources, citations, truths, half truths, and whatnot only exist if the majority of the people accept them to exist. So if people believe the raids exist then they do. This is why those other pages I mentioned exist. If people didn't have the slightest belief in them existing then they would never have been created in the first place. If people do not believe that the raids exist then they wouldn't try to put it on the article page. Now, please cease from ignoring common knowledge. It would look, by my unverifiable opinion, ignorant and foolish, with all due respect. But if you choose to continue it is only you that wills it since I have made no attempts to adding said raids to avoid confrontation. SonnyCorleone 03:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Sonny, I suggest you take this to mediation if they're so unwilling to discuss such an important matter.--WaltCip 15:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry if you think it's non notable or verifiable, but as has been said before: The sheer volume of stuff on the internet proves it happened. There are websites made about it, there are videos and screenshots of it going on, it's common knowledge. And it will be invaluable for researchers of the future; in the early 21st century, people who used to play that long forgotten about game called "Habbo hotel" blocked it. If there's ever internet studies in the future, you bet there will be at least one lesson on website invasions and it's right up here with Ebaums world. It was a direct and planned attack on a franchise and they issued a response with the Australian pool guard. So, please include it. One little paragraph and a picture is all we ask. --80.47.17.221 17:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


The Habbo avatar mentioned above http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/1215/64238680sq7.png really does look like Captain Planet. SakotGrimshine 02:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It's funny how "Pool's closed" redirects here, even when the information of raids isn't here. --Koheiman 04:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It is very depressing when I am forced to go to ED for information, isn't Misplaced Pages supposed to inform people? It's completely failing that in this article, it needs to mention the raids.--194.80.204.28 14:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Is linking to external Wiki's allowed by Misplaced Pages's guidelines? I mean, it'll be much more useful for people interested in finding out more about the raids if it was linked to ED. After all, some information is better than none. --Koheiman 05:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but ED has been whitelisted as the site is a heavy contributor to vandalism here. Any edit to include it would just pop up a standard template disallowing its use. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Lightbulb* I know. Let's take a vote.If this gets to 10 votes for either side, we follow that side.

1/10 Yes, we should include the raids. 0/10 No, they never happened 196.43.65.130 16:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Polling is not a substitute for a discussion. Misplaced Pages is also not a democracy. Inclusion comes through discussion, not by poll. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
What will you accept, then? What kind of evidence does it take for you to accept one of the largest raids in internet history? It's like You are denying the fucking Holocaust here. 196.43.65.130 05:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
This has been discussed many times before. Check the above posts and the archives for your answer. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I came here looking for info on the raids, but there is none thanks to some bizarre blocking effort on the part of some here. The raids are notable, have made an impact on Habbo that lasted and are verifiable. It should be included, lots of people are coming here for it. Especially now that people are being redirected from "pool's closed". The squirming to avoid putting them up should end. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.207.94.80 (talk • contribs).

As a neutral source(I don't Habbo or Raid) I think its very clear there is a consensus the raids should be put in there. The discussion seems to be pretty lopsided actually. There seems to just be 1 or 2 people against inclusion. I feel that its very much against the spirit of Misplaced Pages to not include it. Its not the playground of internet revisionists, and if Habbo Hotel warrants an article, this "raid" seems to warrant inclusion. If a well worded entry can be submitted, i think it would be kept. The only arguements from the Neg seem to be "Moot point" even though its obviously not since so many are bringing it up, and "unverifiable". But as mentioned before, people contend there is photographic and video evidence, as well as much documentation. I don't see how you could possible not include this. Theowannabe

If you need a reliable source that proves the raids actually happened, search YouTube for "pool's closed" or "habbo raid". You could also dig up the old threads from habbodiscussion.com, unless the mods deleted all of them after the forum was shut down on the day of the great raid. --70.130.229.175 01:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Raid Documentation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipACsinKe0Y&mode=related&search= Great July 12th raid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyM0Lwnvt0c&mode=related&search= Raid on MLK day

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR6oVOXVl9M&mode=related&search= July12th with 9/11/compilation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7mxHKICa8k&mode=related&search= more videos of an unidentified raid

As you can see there, and find for yourself via searching the internet there were mass "raids" on the days that are recorded in the videos. I think it would be more appropriate for evidence to disprove the existance of the raids to be presented, as there is ample proof that they did happen and since they have such a large impact on habbo hotel they should be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.152.200 (talk • contribs)

Good for you, but as previously stated many times over, that is not reliable source. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Well if you do a Google search on the subject it comes up with several results, so you would assume that there would be at least one reliable source, and the number of results would suggest that the events did occur. However, the matter of reliable sources could be disputed. -- Kai  07:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The "Raids" were a non-event and not note worthy at all. IF the AU Hotel did dress a pool attendant up as a "raider" they can't really be that worried about it, can they... Hardly a case for inclusion. Every argument above appears to have more to do with the egos of the alleged "raiders" than actual fact. 02:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Well for your reference you should should do an Encyclopedia Dramatica search on the subject (I would provide links, however this site is blocked in the Spam Filter), even though they are unreliable sources, it's worth a read if your willing to contribute to this discussion. --Kai 07:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

http://wikichan.org/index.php/Habbo_Hotel That writeup is actually more reliable than ED. Wikichan is a firly reliable, mostly unbiased website, especially compared to ED. 196.43.65.130 17:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I too have no connection either to Habbo nor any raiding group / site, and came to this page solely because I'd heard that it was a prime and well-known example of mass raiding/trolling that resulted in a service interruption. Not knowing the backstory to this discussion but looking just at the recent comments it looks a lot like there are people who are actively trying to keep anything about attacks on Habbo off the page. The standard for "verifiability" that seems to be being pushed here is far higher than that on other parts of Misplaced Pages. The videos and screen-caps of the trolling seem to be pretty convincing evidence that some level of mischief did occur, and the number of people (myself included) who have only heard of Habbo, and ended up at this article, because of its apparent targeting by trolls means that it's definitely notable, at least within a page dedicated to Habbo generally. I don't know why this article is getting special treatment, and I'm not one to ever defend trolling or other destructive behavior, but this whole thing stinks of suppression. -Kadin2048 18:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

*Citing sources: Those who have tried to include the "raids" fail to cite reliable sources. Others attempt it through vandalism.
*Verifiability: Those sources cannot be verified.
*Original research: Half of the stuff that's been inserted has pretty much been up-in-the-air.
Hope this helps. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


I don't feel that the "Habbo raids" contribute to this article. Yes, it did happen, but if you were to include the 4-chan raid then you'd have to include any future large-scale "attack", and I just don't feel that it's very worthwhile.

As per the verifiability of the great habbo raids, they have been left out of the article. But on June 7, 2007, there is going to be another raid on habbo hotel. Called "Ghai Raid 2007" it is going to be protecting the rights of same sex marriage. Five days later, on June 7, 2007, at 7:00 pm, there is going to be yet another raid for the same reasons as the first one, to protect the rights of black people on Habbo and fight racism. If anyone who has previously argued against putting up the first raid, I ask that you attend these and see for yourself that they are real.Kernel5 21:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

People need to read before they post. We know the raids are real, and they are still happening now. It's the fact that the sources we've found aren't reliable (and let's face it, ED isn't the best place to gather information from). Wikichan isn't much better either. Lannah 01:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Why is none of this noteworthy? it looks like an ad because these raids are not recorded nor it's criticism that STARTED these raids. Why are you denying the only interesting thing that happens to this site? THOUSANDS of vandals from Ebaums and YTMND at one time bringing down the site this time every year is noteworthy, it's the only thing noteworthy about this site. Myahon 02:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I partly agree. Criticism needs to be added, as there is sourceable criticism out there. -- Kai  05:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
And where exactly are these "sourceable" criticisms? Even if a section about the raids is added to the article, it will most likely be constantly vandalised with content inappropriate for the article. Sebi  05:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's my take on things. No to the raids. Yes, we need to include criticism. Definitely. If there is sourceable, significant criticism out there, we should include this. Where could this criticism be found? We could have a look on review sites, e.t.c. Currently the criticism section has no criticism. In fact, it's a miserable section.
"an in-depth article about Habbo Hotel written by British travel writer Tim Moore was published in the Daily Telegraph's Telegraph Magazine." - really? It was mentioned in a magazine? Why don't we actually have excerpts from the review, to show what the actual article is saying?
That section in particular needs expanding with more reviews, more excerpts from the reviews (the most important bit of a review is not the score at the end), and obviously actually needs to mention some criticism.
A quick Google for "Habbo Hotel review" results in this, which isn't as much a review as it is a basic description of what the site is, this, which is one sentence of nonsense, one sentence mentioning good lighting, and then a preponderance of user "reviews" that come across more as comments on a MySpace profile for the most part. This, which doesn't even feature the two sentences of the former, and many more like it. We need to find proper reviews, such as this one, which is already mentioned in the article, to cite, and get proper excerpts from. The article merely mentions "They gave it a rating of 46.5 / 100". How about we include some of their main points from the article? They have quite a few bits of criticism in there, and therefore it's all sourceable. There is quite a bit of criticism there, so feel free to use that. I would have no objections. --Dreaded Walrus 10:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that that little FAQ box up there has mentioned the raids. Is that verifiable? --79.65.27.170 19:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I found a notable review here. -- Kai  06:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Didn't know that it was already mentioned, whoops. -- Kai  05:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Raid going on RIGHT NOW

There's a raid going right now, just look for your self.

Get some pictures and bam, citations!

Nope. That would be original research. --Dreaded Walrus 10:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC
Deaded Walrus is right. Wikipedia has many pages and articles explaining the rules and the reasoning behind them, you are best off ignoring this current events, obey the rules. Anything else is just trolling. (a5y 02:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC))
And the award for the least-subliminal subliminal message goes to A5y! Also, you spelt my name wrong. --Dreaded Walrus 02:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

First anniversary raid commenced yesterday, on 12th of july 20007, habbo.com was taken offline "for matience" and suffered downtime. Habbo moderators declared the day "afro suit day" in an attempt to sabotage anonymous’s protests. This has been mentioned on habbo.com and various sources are available currently for citations. This is an event worthy of inclusion, - anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.16.169.202 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 13 Jul 2007 (UTC)

Apparently this did happen, if you refer to Encyclopedia Dramatica's page on "The Great Raids of July 2006#Reunion", see the image. This wouldn't be the first time this has occurred, as replaced the robot to match the appearance of an apparent raider to which it shouted automated saying such as "Dress like us to keep the Pool OPEN!" and "Pool's not closing today!" -- Kai  13:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
No one editing the article or reverting the trolling on the article is denying the raids are happening – but Misplaced Pages doesn't base its content on what players of the game say, or popular demand. Misplaced Pages displays facts, and facts only, and these facts come from reliable sources that can be verified, and at the moment there are none of these. I, personally, are not denying that they happened. It looks like myself and other users constantly revert the rubbish out of the article are denying it happened, but we are not. Sebi  04:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources for the raids

If someone were to get the Habbo mods/admins/owners to release a statement verifying the existence, in full, of the raids, would they be included in the article? As that is the only semi-valid reason for not mentioning them, I think a simple announcement from a Habbo employee could verify them. Thoughts? *Waiting for someone to make up some new bullshit ending in the raids still not being mentioned* —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.57.3.154 (talk • contribs).

If you look above, noone is saying that they shouldn't be included because they don't exist. We know they exist. But we don't have reliable sources to cite. See this response, for example, for a good explanation of why we cannot mention the articles. This is not new reasoning, simply looking through this talk page shows that everyone here knows the raids have happened, but that we cannot find reliable sources that we can use. It would be useless to simply state in the article "there have been raids". We would need to flesh it out with encyclopedic information about the raids from reliable sources, of which, from my understanding, there are none. --Dreaded Walrus 03:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
If it helps, folks, most of what people looking for info on the raids is now present in this discussion, and thus available. --Anansii 06:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

A new FOX11 news report on "anonymous" (english *chans) features video/comments on the raids. Is that not a usable source, FOX news? -AdamG —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.65.142.215 (talk • contribs).

Yes, we could use it, but we can't use it if you don't provide us with some sort of online news report on Fox news' website about it, or a transcript of the news report (don't all news giants post their TV news on their website, these days?). Sebi  08:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's a link to the Fox website with the video. There's a short clip about "Anonymous raiding Habbo Hotel". http://www.myfoxla.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=3894628&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1 83.245.148.6 13:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I hope the contribution above doesn't go unnoticed: a reliable source has finally been acquired. They are mentioned with a video clip during the latter half of the investigation. Those for inclusion, take notice of the above link. Edit: whoops, didn't see the below discussion--Dch111 02:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this Sourcetoads?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9pyR_90RdOg Is that A notable enough source for you, they mention the Habbo raids Its FOX LA, Anon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.91.25.53 (talk • contribs).

I've watched the news report now, and I must say the ineptitude of the report itself gave me my morning laugh. :)
As for the raids, it mentions the raids, yes, but barely. All it says about them is: "The pranks are often anti-semetic, or racist, and always posted on the internet, but truly epic lulz come from raids and invasions, branded on the Anonymous website with an I."
Which isn't really much to go off if we were to include it in the article.
So yes, it's a notable source (regardless of how inept this particular report may or may not be), but unfortunately the material on the raids isn't really citeable.
In my opinion. It would be nice to see what others think of this, though. --Dreaded Walrus 09:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

He clearly did not mention the name of the website.... ,Anon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.91.25.53 (talk • contribs).

Remember to sign your posts by adding ~~~~ at the end. --Dreaded Walrus 10:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Fox News Affiliate Covers Raids

I've heard here that the Raids need to be sourced to be added. I wouldn't be good at writing it, so I'll leave it up to others, but here's a source: http://www.myfoxla.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail;jsessionid=1327F4DA2B8E211FB160B8D7C29BB626?contentId=3894628&version=4&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1&sflg=1 Check the video. --Kafeithekeaton 21:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Would Fox News 11's mention of the Habbo Hotel raid constitute a verifiable citation? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNO6G4ApJQY Obonicus 17:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If we do include the raids in the article, we'll use the video linked above, and not the youtube video. Sebi  22:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't really answer my question. Does the Foxnews coverage constitute a 'verifiable citation' or not? If it does, the alleged reasoning not to include the raids is moot. Obonicus 01:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Sebi  03:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
It's definitely verifiable, and it's definitely a reliable source. The problem we have is, gleaning enough information about Habbo raids from the video in question, which only says "The pranks are often anti-semetic, or racist, and always posted on the internet, but truly epic lulz come from raids and invasions, branded on the Anonymous website with an I." (my transcript from the feature) --Dreaded Walrus 04:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't SOME mention be made of them, though? I could see a brief explanation of what a raid consists of as well as the fact that at Habbo Hotel has suffered at least one raid in its history. Have any groups claimed responsibility that we can verify? That may be reasonable information to include, as well.
I agree that if we're sticking to strict verifiability we can't enter into detail, but that doesn't mean we should pretend they didn't happen. The raid seems to be at least as notable as the review section of the article. Obonicus 04:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The thing here is, we all know that they happen. I, too, agree that it is a notable aspect of Habbo, but notability guidelines don't really apply to the content of an article anyway, just to the article itself. We can mention that raids happen (the video says they do), we can say which groups have claimed responsibility (providing references of where they claim responsibility. Unfortunately, forums aren't generally reliable sources, though I feel so long as we just use the forum to cite the claim that that forum is responsible, then we should be okay. It's a shame that video doesn't really mention more about the Habbo raids, as it would be nice to have some kind of counterbalance to all the positive stuff in the article.
One possibility is, if we can't find enough citable information to give the raids their own section, it always could go under Reviews, awards and criticism.
You should probably keep your eye on the news feeds, just inc ase any other outlets follow up on Fox News 11's coverage of the raids. --Dreaded Walrus 05:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, just about all we can feature is that the raids occured on Hotels, they are often racist and anti-semantic. We are not going to cover areas covered by the source, like what the raiders yell out, what they were, etc, which is usually what other users attempt to include in the article by vandalism. Sebi  05:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Walrus. How about something like below?:

The Hotel are victims to Internet trolls, "raiding" various rooms with racist comments.

Feel free to add or reword slightly. Sebi  05:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

How about "The Hotels are victims to anonymous internet trolls. Raiding sections of the hotel, mostly the pool, forming swastikas, and making other racist gestures and comments." Anon 76.88.133.148 13:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The raiders aren't racist though. It's the habbo mods who ban the black players for being black, they are the racists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.154.244.144 (talk • contribs).

No, we can only feature information mentioned in the video – it is the source we are using. No where in the video does it say anything about mods banning black players and pools, or anything about swastikas. Sebi  07:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, in one bit of the video, it does show a bunch of them in the pool area forming the swastika. It doesn't audibly mention it, though. --Dreaded Walrus 08:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I suppose so, but it doesn't mention anything or show anything at all that says the mods a racist, or mods banning certain players, etc. Sebi  08:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, definitely agree on that point. I was going to say something about that yesterday, but was short on time, so I just added {{unsigned}} to the post and left it at that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dreaded Walrus (talk • contribs).

So how about...

The Hotels are often victims to various Internet troll groups (don't name them), "raiding" certain public rooms and making rude gestures and comments".

I think that adding "pools" in place of "certain public rooms" and "swastikas" in place of "rude gestures" seems a bit, over-specific. What does everyone else think? Sebi  08:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I like both that version, and your original version, above. I have no real preference either way. (And the irony of me saying that I just added the unsigned template, and not signing that comment myself. :P) --Dreaded Walrus 09:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I added my latest version. Now we wait for the flood of vandalism. :) Sebi  09:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Written like an advertisement

This article is written like an advertisement (overly positive,a buttload of details, etc). However, the protection on the page means I can't add this myself. Could someone do it for me?80.247.146.169 13:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done -- Kai  08:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article reads like it was written by (and is regularly being redacted by) a PR firm working on behalf of Habbo. This is becoming a huge problem on Misplaced Pages, particularly with tech/"new economy"/Web 2.0 firms. Misplaced Pages is not a billboard. Editors beware. Kwertii 19:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Which sections of the article are written like the advertisement? The article as a whole is not written like that, and was not intended to be written like one. It helps to actually let people know what is wrong with the article so it can be fixed, instead of complaining on the talk page about how bad the article is. –Sebi ~ 08:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's mostly the list of features, the way high reviews for the website are placed, and the way the whole thing sounds like the back of the box for a video game.196.43.65.130 14:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This is only a suggestion, but I think that someone here should sit down with someone who doesn't play Habbo and ask them to read the article. If they look at something and say "huh?", it's probably unnecessary information. Before deleting anything, though, reply here with what sections were noticed. Might not be the best way to go about cleaning the article, but at least it would (hopefully) be un-biased. YodaOfDarkness 05:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I've never played Habbo Hotel, and don't plan on it. So, I've had a read through the article, as recommended. The very first sentence, the lead sentence, does come across as a bit unencyclopedic, almost like something that you would expect to see on the back of a flyer for the site, or on a "Why register?" link. This sentence, from History:

The second member of the Hotel chain was launched in the United Kingdom in January 2001. Since then, the Hotel chain along with its user base has continued to grow.

Is a bit curious. It makes out like the program is a real chain of hotels, or that the article is written in-universe. Surely it should say something along the lines of "The service was also launched in the United Kingdom in January 2001, and has since been expanded to 29 countries in total, most recently Russia" (this sentence could then make the second-to-last sentence in the lead section obsolete, too).
In Habbo Exchange, "Habbo Exchange is currently available on all Hotels running on Release 12." should probably be changed to something like "Habbo Exchange is currently available on all servers running on Release 12.", again as "Hotels" is a bit unusual to read. It might be the term preferred by the company, but Misplaced Pages obviously isn't meant as a mouthpiece for an article's subject.
The same problem exists with Inside The Hotel.
In-game games. This section contains one of the things that I hate the most about Misplaced Pages. Not necessarily about Misplaced Pages itself, but about the type of edits that videogame articles tend to attract. That is, the article directly addressing the user. Usually in a way that wouldn't look out of place on GameFAQS. One of the first things I do when I read a Misplaced Pages video game article for the first time, is do a Ctrl+F for "you". In this instance, it's "The points you gain in Snow Storm are shown in place of your motto while in the Snow Storm lobby as well as on the users Home Page.", which should probably be "The points a user gains in Snow Storm are shown in place of the user's motto while in the Snow Storm lobby as well as on the user's Home Page."
Another thing that always riles me when reading articles, is seeing words like "recently", "this year", or "last month", or other things that don't apply indeterminately. It's WP:RECENTISM at its worst. In this case, the example is in Habbo Credits: "A new feature allows players to purchase ". New? It won't be new in a few months time, and I have no idea of how long that particular wording has been in the article anyway. It could have been added months ago, but I don't know, because it only says "new". Anyone who has knowledge of the 'game' should probably change it to "A feature added in MONTH YEAR", which will futureproof the article. A similar example occurs later down, in an image caption: "The new Release 12 safe-trading dialog box". It's not new when earlier on, the latest version is listed as "Release 14.1_b10". The Habbo Club section has a perfect example of how to word these things: "March 2007 saw the release of 15 new pieces of exclusive furniture ". All such uses of "new" in the article are acceptable, and aren't related to 'length of time from now'.
The article is full of stuff that is of little to no relevance to people who haven't played the game and don't plan on it. One example being:

When using the Navigator, players can search for certain guest rooms by either typing the first few letters of the room name, or the owner's user name into the search bar.

And? Most online games have search functions. In fact, a vast majority of the article is of very little interest to those who haven't played the game. Do we really need a section on the rules of the minigames on offer?
I actually have to go somewhere now, so I won't continue, but I shall mention a few more things.
  • This article needs to have spelling standardised. The article uses the spelling customize, yet also uses the spellings colour, theatre, catalogue, utilised, and possibly others (I just did a quick scan through). I don't care whether the article goes AmE, or BrE, but it should definitely be standard.
Sorry to have kinda deviated from the original track. --Dreaded Walrus 15:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I made some of your suggested changes. What could be done next, so we can finally remove this advert tag? Sebi  23:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The details about the payment methods: "...can be bought by players using credits via a variety of payment methods, including (but not limited to)..." sound like advertising to me. Misplaced Pages should be about the general relevance of the website, rather than about the ways in which the creators of the game make profit out of it, the payment details are not relevant for the general public. I'd suggest to limit this part to saying that there is the possibility to buy virtual furniture, period. It is interesting that this marketing oriented reference is introduced before saying anything about the philosophy of the community (the way of Habbo) this seems to reflect the priorities of an interested part writing the article, i.e: sounds like advertising.Iguazo 13:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Great points. Is this any better? --Dreaded Walrus 14:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the proposed change, what matters is to say that virtual goods can be purchased with real money.Iguazo 17:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
How about this? The bit has changed from "The service's other focus point is virtual furniture, which is often called "furni" by players. This can be bought by players using credits via a variety of payment methods, including (but not limited to) SMS, home phone, pre-paid cards, credit card and money order.", to "The service's other focus point is virtual furniture, which is often called "furni" by players. This virtual furniture can be bought by players using credits, which are bought using real-life currency.". Feel free to improve the sentence yourself too, if you want, though it will take a couple of days until your account is old enough to be able to edit it. If you want, you could add the intro to your user page, edit it there to what you think it should be, and then drop us a line here when you feel it is ready. Sound good? :) --Dreaded Walrus 17:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
To my mind the first paragraph is better with the changes you introduced, thanks. However when re-reading the article thoroughly and I realize that the same kind of "look at the nice virtual things you can purchase" is all over the article (pets, badges, and so on), and in general, the article seems too focused in the commercial issues of the site (sponsors, credits, trading). One way to make the article more neutral would be to present some of the documented criticism. I could make some suggestions in that respect, for instance, oddly enough since this web was created in Finland, the version of this article in the Finnish wikipedia does include a paragraph warning on the online dangers in this type of community, I could prepare a translation of that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iguazo (talk • contribs).
Please, go ahead. Anything to finally remove that {{advert}} tag ;) Sebi  21:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Personally I think it's important we add under criticism that a player's status in Habbo Hotel is solely achieved through spending real-life money, as opposed to most other online games, which allow players to earn their status while playing. Peglegpenguin 03:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


Current Hotel list

The Current Hotels list is relevant to the article. DanPMK (talk · contribs) has removed the section from the article, because "It fails WP:N", and that there are "No sources", and "no external coverage". How exactly does it fail WP:N? As a matter of fact, there is a source provided, if you had cared to check. That source was broken, as Sulake had updated their site and moved things around, so the new source is here. No external coverage? What exactly do you mean by "no external coverage"?

He also removed the section previously, stating that "The article already states there are 29 hotels, and this is an English wiki". As I have explained on his talk page previously (no reply), this may be an English wiki, but does it mean that we can't feature content on other languages and other information about other cultures?

The list is relevant to the article, because it lists all the Habbo Hotels across the globe; as far as I'm concerned that is of some relevance to the article. There are sources to back up the claims that these Hotels exist and are actual Habbo Hotels. It is relevant, and it has a source; therefore, there is no reason to have it removed from the article. Sebi  08:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't have much of an opinion on whether it is included or not, but with regards to this edit summary, I should make it clear that notability guidelines apply only to articles themselves, and not to the content of articles. So, while it would be not appropriate to have an entire article dedicated to say, the Finnish Hotel, whether it should be included in this article is unrelated to notability. --Dreaded Walrus 08:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
There is already a discussion, actually ;) All good, now. Sebi  08:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The reason I removed them is because it's bad enough that this article is a giant advertisement. It is stated already that there are 29 hotels; we don't need to link to all of them. In fact, the intro to the article cites the hotel list page as a reference. As for me saying it's an English wiki, you know I didn't mean to exclude it on the grounds you stated. Of course Misplaced Pages has information on almost ever other culture; it's an encyclopedia. I'm simply saying that, as an English wiki, there is little need to link to 28 non-English language websites when there is an English one available. The article is already long enough.
As for WP:N, I thought that it applied to content; I was mistaken. Nevertheless, I think my above point holds up rather well. What does everyone else think? - MK ( /contribs) 07:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay then, what do you suggest we do to the section to make it look less like an advertisement? Sebi  07:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Article still an advertisement?

Alot of changes have been made since the advert tag has been added – what could be done next? All suggestions welcome. Sebi  08:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Categories: