Talk:Casual Collective

Untitled
I strongly believe that this is a significant website. Both of its founders have created significant web games, and also you can see on various pages such as the page of Desktop TD that there is a link to this page but THE LINK IS INVALID. Seeing the Casual Collective link being red on several pages I think that it is important to make a page on here.

Please do not delete this page immediately we should discuss this first! :D

Happyland123 (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This page was deleted before so I recreated it. If you disagree with me on the importance of this site please discuss here on the Talk page. Thanks!

Happyland123 (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Importance of Casual Collective
I think that the Casual Collective is an important website, it has been indicated in several user articles, it has tens of thousands of members on it, and even here on Wikipedia it has been linked to several times, yet the link Casual Collective has always been red and this irks me. I think we should make this link blue!

Happyland123 (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

"Background Information"
The Background Information paragraph is rather obsolete and not neutral, especially the second part. Removing it for now, if anyone wants it back please discuss here Cilibinarii (talk) 12:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Website undergoing changes
Information might become outdated, ill probably update it once we're out of this bizarre situation. Cilibinarii (talk) 10:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 92.21.217.5 (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC) 'might' is a tad conservative in the circumstances. Have added a 'this article is bollocks' tag for the time being. 92.21.217.5 (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Rewriting for the old.casualcollective update
I have been and am going to try to rewrite the article to fit the recent "old.casualcollective.com" update and the image of the Casual Collective as a company rather than as a web site. Any suggestions/assistance would be appreciated. Cilibinarii (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The "Features" section definitely needs a rewrite or something, as it refers more to the old site. I think the "History" and "Games" sections are mostly fine though. - ctzmsc3&#124;talk 20:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)