Massively multiplayer online role-playing game was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the
good article criteria. 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.
This article 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
Convert all references to their proper format (
Template:Cite web could be useful here).
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Hutchidd.
Isn't it fine to talk about the legal issues that MMORPGs. I know that there are already a video game controversies page, but since we're section this off from general video games, it should be talk about, especially in this small of a realm. Also the question about the new that was added, I had not finished editing it. I just had that place until I came back. I was going to change the title and bring in more facts about how we change MMORPGs into something else.
Hutchidd (
talk)
19:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)reply
The problem is proper focus (Undue weight), tone and sourcing. You may want to review the list of reliable secondary sources at
WP:VG/RS. "We" don't change MMORPGs into something else. Wikipedia reports what our reliable secondary sourcing is saying, we do not
create our own original research. --
ferret (
talk)
19:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Not even just a sole author's opinion; it's trying to scrunch any kind of controversy into the article when that's not the point of the article. We have others (as noted in the edit itself) that can and should capture concerns about video games.
Video game captures it at a
WP:SUMMARY level and
Video game addiction/
Video game controversies capture it at a more-detailed level; it shouldn't be injected into a genre article or even specific video games. As you have been reverted multiple times, you should stop making the attempted change until there is consensus. --
Izno (
talk)
16:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Then, if talking about the legal issues is a problem then it shouldn't be talked or have it's own section. Instead I should link this page to the main page about video game controversies. Is that correct or should I not worry about the legal issues whatsoever?
Hutchidd (
talk)
16:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Adding to Licenses Section
I want to add to the Licenses Section about how small groups of people acquire the right to bring back a game from another company or the franchise.
Hutchidd (
talk)
02:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)reply
I reverted your edits for now. While we haven't discussed geekreply.com at
WT:VGRS, I doubt it would ever be considered a reliable source. The authors don't appear to have any degrees or credentials or experience in games journalism (in fact, they're looking for more writers and state "
you don’t even need to have prior experience"), there are no published editorial standards, the site is filled with advertisement and SEO "articles", and they don't appear to be cited by other reliable sources which points to a lack of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Now the
Game Revolution article, while a reliable source, is simply a roundup of MMOs that they like. It doesn't make the claim that "MMORPGs have been showing up with no shortage of stopping", which is a ridiculous
WP:CRYSTALBALL-ish assertion that we shouldn't make on Wikipedia. If you can locate reliable sources that talk about games licenses—like sources listed at
WP:VG/RS—we can certainly discuss how to add to the article. I hope this helps! Cheers!
Woodroar (
talk)
03:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)reply
That makes sense. It seems hard to find sources that are giving me information that answer or give me the information that I want to add to the page.
Hutchidd (
talk)
16:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Requested move 22 May 2020
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose. Most reliable sources tend to spell out the term—at least the first time—and searches for "massively multiplayer online role-playing game" tend to give more scholarly sources than "MMORPG". Besides, if the issue is linkability, you can always link to
MMORPG and it will redirect to this article.
Woodroar (
talk)
18:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose "Ease of linking" is not a valid reason to move a topic, especially since you can already link that way as a redirect. --
ferret (
talk)
19:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose. "It is much easier to link to" in the nomination gives the game away. Links are not here for editors' convenience. No evidence has been provided that "|MMORPG" is the common name.
94.21.219.127 (
talk)
22:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose. This is a good point. MMORPG is arguably the most common moniker. I wouldn't mind a move. Still, I slightly prefer the longer, more descriptive title. Cheers, Manifestation (
talk)12:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Merge - April 2023
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Electing to close this discussion as Not merged, as aside from the nominator, the result has been unanimous and the discussion has been open for two months now. At the very least, the result changing would require a significant sharp turn in the consensus to even reach a no consensus result. -
Cukie Gherkin (
talk)
20:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The fork looks like the result of some languages lacking a proper translation for the term. Every native translation of it should involve creating an acronym in the target language, since that expresses a fundamental aspect of internet culture plus the media genres which MMORPG'es actually base themselves on.
Nira gliro (
talk)
02:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose Woodroar already covered it. I get the sense that there some sort of right-great-wrongs at work here. This is English Wikipedia, so the articles reflect the English names for these genres and sub-genres. --
ferret (
talk)
18:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.