Talk:LAN gaming center

Untitled
The term 'center' in this case is incorrect. It should be 'centre', center being the middle of a circle. Centre being a building or gathering place.

203.91.245.98 22:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)Dean

Re LAN Gaming Center
The terms Center or Centre means the same thing. Just depends on where you live. Canadians use Centre while Americans use Center. --Arobertson 21:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It should remain Center. 72.75.208.176 05:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

editprotected
Someone should:


 * Add vprotected to it.
 * Possibly lowercase the last two words, as they are not proper nouns.

Thanx. 68.39.174.238 22:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The template has been added. Are you referring to the title? Makes sense to me. Anyone know of a valid reason why it should be capitalised? And the same question about Video Game Center ? -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

External links revisited
There is renewed disagreement about the value and appropriateness of a link to the iGames website. Over the last several months, a link to that website plus others have been added and removed at least two dozens times. The activity has been quite contentious at times, with deceptive edit summaries, personal attacks and other unfortunate behavior. A majority of reinsertions (18) have been done by five IP addresses assigned to Games Plus, Inc (the 66.93.251.112/28 block), editors demonstrating affiliation with Games Plus and other users who have appeared only or mainly to edit this article. The latest reinsertion is to iGames search forms for "finding a center."

I continue to believe that the DMOZ site is sufficient, that the iGames link is not a helpful addition and should be removed. The iGames site has an objectionable amount of advertising and prominently solicits signup. The iGames site is easily found in the DMOZ listing, so it is doesn't need to be duplicated here. The article mentions nothing about searching for or finding a center, so apparently that aspect is not particularly relevant; the article does not demand the link. In a sense, the main text of the article should drive the links or the links section just becomes a repository. As the policy states, Wikipedia is not the white pages or the yellow pages. ✤ JonHarder talk 19:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I wholeheartedly agree with JonHarder. The continued insertion of this link violates WP:External links, WP:Conflict of interest, and WP:Spam, among others. The link is already included via the DMOZ template, which is a link repository. But even if the site were not at DMOZ, there is simply no good reason for such a link to be in this encyclopedia article. -- Satori Son 20:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The link to iGames does not violate WP:External links or WP:Conflict of interest because it is being added from a neutral POV and I have nothing to do with iGames. the only reason I edit here at the cybercafe from this IP is because the school is blocked! 66.93.251.114 03:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank goodness we have JonHarder to save us from ourselves! Time to award another WikiMedal! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.34.228 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The sarcasm above is brought to us from the same IP whose major contributions have been to spam for Chris Bryant of bryantadvantage.com and to remove competitors' links. Your comment is neither constructive nor helpful for improving this article. ✤ JonHarder talk 16:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Revisting the Exterenal Links. iGames is of unequivical value to this artcile. iGames is the ONLY way to get licenses to run EA, Micrsoft, Sony, Ubisoft, etc Games. Beyond that iGames is an alliance of lan centers that has over 500 lan centers in it and holds competitive events, etc. I also added links to the Valve Cyber Cafe Program from Valve Games and the Blizzard Game Center program- these programs only offer licensing though. Do not delete the links again. Mwarhead 01:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * But since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a business "how to" guide, those are not compelling reasons to include the links here. And the iGames.org link is included at DMOZ, which is already linked here, so readers can still find it if they want to. If iGames was notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article, such a link would be appropriate over there, but not here. I have removed again. -- Satori Son 21:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * iGames is notable enough to have an article on itself and so is Game Center Licensing. I think you need to do some actual research instead of harpooning peoples articles unfairly. The people posting in this article seem to all be involved in the Game Center industry and in some way and are writing a well written article based on facts not just made up feelings. Please do research before you delete anything again. Mwarhead 01:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * DMOZ was replaced with LanAtomic. DMOZ is a really old outdated lan center listing. It lists a handful of lan centers most are out of business. LanAtomic is an open lan center directory that is updated very frequently including ratings of lan centers, tournaments, etc.Mwarhead 01:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not true. The DMOZ link has been in the article since early November and is not outdated.  It even includes the iGames.org link you want to add, so why would you delete it? -- Satori Son 23:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

DMOZ is a poorly laid out directory that lists only a very small precent of the over 500 lan centers just in the United States and Canada alone. I attempted to add many centers to it in the past to find the submit url was broken at the time (although is now working). If I were to manually add all of the centers to it then it wouldnt be useful as it doesn't categorize them. A listing by State and country is much much much more useful. IF we are not going to be linking to many sites, why not link to one thats actually useful. Mwarhead 01:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, you are close to violating the Three-revert rule and I have placed the required notice on your talk page. Second, I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia.  Once again, this is an encyclopedia, not a directory (see WP:NOT) or business "how-to" guide. There is simply no encyclopaedic reason for the link to your website to be included here. -- Satori Son 00:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been asked to get involved here and I am. judging by most other articles here on wikipedia the external link he is trying to get added is very appropriate, further I think a link to the igames should be added aswell. BigTimeGamer 00:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. As a brand new user you would possibly be unaware of our polices regarding external links.  Wikipedia is not a directory and there is no case for adding external links to directory web sites.  As is already happening, as soon as one link is added we soon accumulate a long list of external links.  Wikipedia's policy is that rather than allowing this to happen, linking to a related category in the Open Directory Project which is devoted to creating relevant directories of links pertaining to various topics is a better solution. &mdash;Moondyne 01:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A few things here. A. That's not my website. B. I am no way a part of LanAtomic.com other then I use it to find LAN Gaming Centers. C. Why would you link to a site thats not helpful instead of one that is? Obviously you have no clue about anything on this subject mater and I find it offensive that you are telling people that do what we should put in the article. I request that a higher moderator intervene and no futurer actions be taken by the current moderators.Mwarhead 01:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am another admin and i am interveneing and I support the previous administrators decisions. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I happen to have read over WP:EL throughly before putting my 2 cents into this article and the links in question fit the standards of WP:EL to the T. BigTimeGamer 01:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That link is not an appropriate external link. It is spammy and wikipedia is not for advertising websites. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Then remove DMOZ as well because it does not in any way shape or form represent an quality or useful external link.Mwarhead 01:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is there even a external link category if every single external link is singled out as spam? BigTimeGamer 01:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, per the above discussion, the DMOZ has a quasi consensus to stay and therefore no consensus to remove. On the other hand, your links have been removed and complained about by many editors. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Moderator Attention
This was posted in my user page

"== combative behavior ==

If you continue your disruptive, combative and Uncivil behavior behavior, you will be blocked. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)"

Reply by Mwarhead
Chris I did not start the combative or disruptive behavior. I simply intended to improve a VERY poor article. I stated my reasons for the changes to the article several times and asked for a written statement as to why the link did not meet the external linking requirements (which it appears to meet those requirements the best it can) in both the talk pages for the Lan Gaming Center and in private messages to both the moderators. Neither moderator provided a reason other then to try and defend DMOZ. In that line of thinking you could have added both links. The moderators involved continually reverted the article after it had been edited by many sources to remove the DMOZ link and add a better equivalent. It seems to me that this is combative, but the moderators vs. the contributors. Every single contributor is in agreement that there should be either no links or a link to LanAtomic. The moderators seem to be the only ones in agreement that it should stay.

I ask again that the moderators actually research Lan Gaming Centers and then come back and add to the discussion instead of hindering those that actually know what they are talking about.Mwarhead 03:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not in this in an effort to make a decision one way or the ther about the article personally(I.E. i have no personal preference which way it should go). In situations like this i try to stay as disconnectd form the article as I can.  I have read the discussion and viewed the edit history.  from what I can see, the consensus is against adding the links.  I posted that comment about your combative behavior on your talk page due to the combative and uncivil replies that you left there.  I am here to enforce consensus, and in no other capacity.  I have no conflict of interest in this situation, and making a decision about which would be more appropriate may give me one.  Hope this helps, thanks. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 03:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Chris, I asked and requested an outside moderator to come in and make a decission on what is being discussed here. As you can read above the concensus by the moderators is the keep the DMOZ link. The consensus by the actual article contributors is that the DMOZ link is of poor quality and either should replaced with a higher quality link like LanAtomic or not used at all. Mwarhead 03:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am an outside admin. I have no affiliation with this article nor do I care what it is about.  I have read the links.  the link you are adding has lots of advertisements and other links in it.  This is very frowend upon in the external links section because somebody makes money off of it.  THe current link, the DMOZ link has no advertisements and seems like a much better choice for the external links section. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 03:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "dmoz not working isn't a reason to add the links back in - Wikpipedia is not a directory. The dmoz link is a sop. If it's not working there's no problem with getting rid of it and having this simply be an encyclopedia article, instead of a place for LAN "gaming participants to use as a directory. External links should be to sites that add encyclopedic value, a list of currently open gaming centers isn't encyclopedic information. --Siobhan Hansa 12:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the intent, at least my intent, for the article is for it to describe what a LAN gaming center is and some of the typical products and services they offer. In other wods my intent is for the article to be very informative for the millions of people that have never been to a lan gaming center. Compare this article to the article on baseball for example. First we explain what a lan gaming center is and maybe talk about the popularity of lan gaming centers in the USA and other countries. After that we could talk about variation in lan centers and lan centers importance in the competitive gaming world linking to other wikipedia articles on competitive gaming. Finally I wanted to added a directory of lan centers as a link in the article for those looking for a lan gaming center. This is similar to how Leagues are linked to in the Baseball page. Anyways, I think the whole article needs a rewrite and will begin working on that as time permits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwarhead (talk • contribs)
 * You are welcome to contribute to the article, enhance it etc etc. However, the link to the langaming website is innapropriate. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 03:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest Chris, the Cyberathlete_Professional_League & Cyberathlete_Amateur_League articles has more "sponsorship" and "Buy Buy" than the iGames link does. Even the Wikipedia article cites current sponsors and links directly to their commercial sites.  I agree the article needs a major NPOV, but I disagree that the link should not be allowed in there, AFTER a complete article re-write. Starblazer 06:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Article Improvements
I have a few questions:

What are the guidelines for posting images in an article on Wikipedia? I assume we need permission (should be easy enough to get), outside of that what other conditions are there?

Also are there any rules regarding references?

I have edited the article and tagged it for not citing references. I have also tagged this discussion page to note that LAN Gaming Centers are a big part of Profession Gaming which should be mentioned in the article somewhere when improved.Mwarhead 13:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Poorly written and poorly referenced.
This article fails to show what a LAN Gaming Center is and IMO it should be rewritten with proper references.

I don't know why editors discard the IGames directory or LANAtomic as accurate reference to LAN Centers around the world and take DMOZ which is extremely innacurate.

Someone suggested to merge this with PC Bang. That would be a mistake. The term PCBang comes from the Korean LAN Gaming centers, which is a regional term for the more generic LAN Gaming Center name.

The article is justified as people I know had assignments from their business classes and they chose to make a paper on LAN Gaming centers. Unfortunately, with these back and forth issues, my friends are frustrated as Wikipedia is not a good resource for this particular matter. I hope the issues are corrected and the proper references and links are in place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.91.172.36 (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC).


 * I propose a complete article rewrite, i have a few sources and want to completely revamp this article and improve upon it with sources. If anyone opposes this i would like to discuss why and how we can work that out. Otherwise i will begin doing such things.Ph3onix (talk) 10:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't know whether I oppose your changes or not because you haven't disclosed what you intend to do. I agree the article needs work, but your very first edit was not particularly helpful.  What are your plans? — Satori Son 13:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I propose to add a history of lan gaming centers, how they were originally conceived and some of the major events that occurred in lan centers that have affected the media and eSports/gaming as a whole. I believe it should look more like the movie theatre article as well. Ph3onix (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That certainly sounds good to me. As long all information is attributed to reliable sources, it would be a nice improvement to this stub. — Satori Son 00:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Merge to PC bang

 * Oppose Merge - different terms, different place, different side of the world. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Merge. Not sure what the proposer's rationale is, but I don't see the logic in this. If anything, PC bang should be a redirect to Internet cafe or here. -- Satori Son 17:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Merge I agree with what Satori Son has to say in this matter BigTimeGamer 19:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Merge entirely. PC Bang should stay as its own article. &mdash;Moondyne 00:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Merge. PC Bang isn't even the proper name in English. If anything gets merged, it should be PC Bang into LAN gaming centre. Cavenba 20:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Article Improvements and Rewrite with References
Please place the content and ideas of the article rewrite if anyone has something to contribute to it. it should be placed here and name the references. So we can get this up smoothly.Ph3onix (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Move To Video Game Center
Hmmmm I remember an article (can't remember if I created it) about a more general 'video game center' - ie a modern arcade. I was thinking if anything this "Lan Gaming Center" would be merged into that, not the other way around. A video game center is a more overarching term, sorta more appropriate.... but then again video game center would make it seem too much like video arcade which is totally not applicable. Kopf1988 (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

iGames or Lanatomic
So, which one should should be included. I'd say iGames because Kopf1988 (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC) I'm going to have to say lanatomic should stay. Omegacommand (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's probably more professional... been around since 1996 (so they say)
 * Been on the article longest
 * Looks and seems trustworthy
 * Probably has actual realationships with game centers
 * Lanatomic looks like it could be someone's personal site
 * iGames seems to be an actual professional organization
 * Lanatomic is free to list your center.
 * They have been around for several years.
 * They are trustworthy.


 * igames seems more helpful, better organized and more user friendly to me. Almogo (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Igames, but if not the should both stay. Freakdomination (talk) 07:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Lanatomic should stay Igames charges LAN centers $40.00 or more a month just to be listed and lanatomic charges nothing. I think if one listing had to go it should be
 * I also wanted to point out lanatomic has been on the article since 2006 Freakdomination (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I like those three links. Let's put those three, in that order, in the article then and keep it that way? Kopf1988 (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

2006??
"The first LAN Gaming Centre [..] opened in 2006" This is a joke right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HalifaxRage (talk • contribs) 19:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I sure hope so. I knew a local LAN center that opened in 2005. Let's try early-90s. Somebody needs to correct this statement, or at least remove it for inaccuracies, since it's easy to just Google LAN centers that have been open for much longer than the referenced business. Synth3tk (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Current gen
The opening paragraph states "Centers are starting to offer PS3s, Wiis and Xbox 360s that are playable in store." Considering these systems are 8 years old, this statement reeks of age. Should'nt this be fixed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serpinium (talk • contribs) 14:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Extremely Outdated
This article is probably 15 years out of date, based on the citations, and provides little but a historical perspective. should be removed maybe 2601:340:C400:400:717C:F425:5EC2:C61B (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Feel free to propose it for deletion. Follow the guidance at Articles for deletion. Or, you can try to improve it. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)