Talk:Destructoid

Cleanup for Reconsideration
Suggest editors post here before making major changes to the article.
 * Okay, I’ve put up the text between arrow brackets, and here’s the reasoning behind this discussion page “suggestion board”, as I like to call it: The administrators of this article truly appreciate any and all contributions, but we are striving to make this the best article it can be. Since it seems that the idea of a Destructoid article is on thin ice with Wikipedia administrators (considering the article has been deleted seven times), we don’t want to unnecessarily anger them with content that doesn’t follow Wikipedia policy, or with edits that are unconstructive. We hope that this does not discourage you from editing, and again, we are happy that you would take the time to try and improve the Destructoid article. Thank you. —BrOnXbOmBr21 • talk • contribs • 08:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree 100%. I’ll put a notice inside brackets at the top of the page so people know not to make major edits without consulting the article’s administrators first. By that, I mean that people should post their ideas here first (in bullet form, and with a signature at the end) for the administrators to approve them. I’m going to go ahead and name myself, wardrox (the creator of the sixth and seventh iterations of the article), NamelessTed, HarassmentPanda, and King3vbo as the administrators so far; it seems that the five of us have put the most work into the article recently. Of course, I’m open to having more people as administrators if I see significant contributions from them. I don’t want anyone to misconstrue this as a warning against making any changes, however; if you have a minor edit, go ahead. Again, please log in and sign all your posts so we know who you are: simply insert four consecutive tildes ( ~ ) at the end of your post, and your signature will automatically be inserted there. Thanks, everyone! —BrOnXbOmBr21 • talk • contribs • 21:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In no way am I trying to put down the good work and effort it took to make this article. I also don't mean to be uncooperative. However I have to ask, is there some important need to have "administrators" to this article? And also, how would article "administrators" guarantee their position in the first place? What I am seeing at this moment are two posts from someone that has not posted on this talk page in nearly two years. It would be difficult to run a major change by an inactive administration. Therefore, if I do end up making some changes to the page, please pardon me, as I would still do my best to live up to Wikipedia's guidelines. - Commandur (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks amazing
I still don't understand all the BS with this article... *sigh* But people will be people.

At any rate, it looks amazing, but the part about the features... can we make the titles a size smaller? Each doesn't have enough content under it, and the title is taller than the text itself. Also, I'm going to edit the sentences in the first paragraph a little. ClockworkCompanionCube 01:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, frankly, I’m planning on getting rid of the entire ‘Features’ section, or at least consolidating it into a paragraph or something. You’re right...there isn’t nearly enough content for each sub-section, and I think that that kind of list (it’s the same way that the article on Kotaku looks) is dumb. It doesn’t make for a good article; we need more substance. Hopefully, I’ll have some time to work on this today (November 10). —BrOnXbOmBr21 • talk • contribs • 05:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to add that I think the page looks awesome, and that you've done a great job Bronxbomber21 King3vbo (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)king3vbo

More Original Features?
I don't know if it would be helpful, but I'm just going to suggest that you add The Memory Card and The Great Retro Quiz. I mean it seems like there are a lot of small sections under the original features, so It may not be a good idea, and I don't know if you consider those as original features, so I'll let you make the judgement call.
 * Well, as I said above, I want to shrink the current ‘Features’ section into a paragraph or two. I won’t be including all of the features; it’s going to read more like a summary of original features in general, rather than than a list of every single original feature that an editor has ever done (again, I don’t think that’s worth doing that unless we can get a decent amount of text for each feature, and that doesn’t appear to be doable). It depends...if I find that the article is starved for content, I may end up doing that, but at this point, that seems like it would be filler more than anything else. I haven’t yet figured out what the end product is going to look like, but, as always, your input is very much appreciated. Thanks! —BrOnXbOmBr21 • talk • contribs • 07:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested articles + more potential sources
Hello Bronxbomb, this article has been requested at WP:CVG/R, would you mind if I linked to this userfied version? I was going to delete it from the requested articles and link this in the edit summary.

Also, I've been digging around for some sources and though nothing strong has come up, these may be of some use:

VH1's gamebreak blog references references a Destructoid discussion on "video games as art" this gaygamer.net piece is nice, not sure how useful it is but hey Gamasutra article about how blog-writers should be funded, includes Destructoid's writer payment scheme

Thanks Someoneanother 17:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for even digging around to find this WIP article and the other sources! I hadn’t previously seen any of them, and I hope to integrate them into the Destructoid article.


 * However, I’m going to have to respectfully decline your request. I appreciate the thought, but Wikipedia admins seem to be particularly trigger-happy with regards to the existence of a Destructoid wiki article — it (or a version of it) has been deleted something like nine times. I had to go through a decent amount of trouble just to get this userfied version restored from oblivion, and I don’t want to anger the admins, who seem to think that re-establishing a Destructoid article at all violates criterion G4 under CSD.


 * Sadly, I just haven’t had the time to work on this article (I have a lot of ambitious plans, hopes, and dreams for the article, as you can see from my posts on this talk page). While linking to this page would surely direct traffic here and get more people editing (improving) the article, I think that what you’re suggesting is a way of circumventing the article’s status as one that has been deleted and thus does not currently exist in official Wikipedia article form. Again, thanks so much for the thought, and the link to WP:CVG/R; it’s good to know that at least one person agrees with me that Destructoid deserves its own Wikipedia article. Someday, that goal will be realized — I’ll see to that. —BrOnXbOmBr21 • talk • contribs • 20:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, if doing so wouldn't be 100% positive then it ain't good enough, I'll leave well enough alone. Thanks for your work so far. Someoneanother 20:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Logo and/or Other Images
I am still new to Wikipedia (at least as an editor) and am wondering what we might use as a graphical representation in this article. I believe it should be a Destructoid logo or the Mr. Destructoid mascot. I was somewhat unclear exactly what the logo was, so I went looking for a mascot image. Would this: [http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrigneous/422680430/ Destructoid! on Flickr (mrigneous)] be an acceptable image, because of it's Creative Commons licenses?

The license looks fine, but I'm concerned about two things. First, the apparent book, I'm not even sure what it is, but could that affect whether the image is okay to use? Second, the fact that the mascot/costume represents intellectual property by Destructoid. Does that have any bearing on whether the Flickr user can legitimately grant such a license? (Or maybe this question belongs elsewhere?)- Commandur (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Controversy
Destructoid has faced some recent criticisms this year, the most notable being the backlash over the Halo Wars review where it was found that the reviewer had played very little of the game yet was pretty harsh on it. After this was revealed the writer completed the game and resubmitted the review. Should such things be mentioned?

http://www.nerve.com/CS/blogs/61fps/archive/2009/02/24/ron-workman-calls-out-destructoid-for-sloppy-journalism.aspx

The above link also links to other sources. --Elven6 (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That article is just chock full of hearsay. I think it would be a significant enough of a controversy to fit in the article, but you need some more reliable sources in my opinion. - Commandur (talk) 05:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Not to mention that most game reviewers for magazines such as Game Informer don't bother finishing games either. Not relevant information. ZServ (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Listing staff = Unencyclopediac?
I don't imagine that knowing the current workers at destructoid gives much of a fuller understanding of what the site is about. It's not typically listed on other news organization websites (unless the people have their own wikipedia pages). It seems more like printing the honor roll in the newspaper than valuable information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.165.71 (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hacked Accounts
It bears mentioning that Destructoid was hacked and there was a large controversy over them storing user names and passwords in plaintext format. Source can be found here: http://www.destructoid.com/important-we-changed-all-of-your-dtoid-passwords-possible-hacker-activity-118504.phtml Can anyone find another reliable source and post this? I know they have (hopefully) increased their security, but something this major should definitely be mentioned in the main article. 98.114.36.210 (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Jim Sterling's opinion is in EVERY recent video game article
Call it the Roger Ebert effect. Why makes his opinion so notable that it appears in every video game article on Wikipedia under 'Reception'? Sometimes he is the only one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.94.182 (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Japanator.com redirects here now
Now someone should write about Japanator and this toy website from the Destructoid network too. --Niemti (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I came here from a Japanator redirect, yet there's no indication in the article as to why it redirects here. Freikorp (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

"Japanator.com" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanator.com&redirect=no Japanator.com] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Neocorelight (Talk) 01:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)