Talk:List of multiplayer browser games/Archive 1

Response to WP:MEDCAB Request
(Same message left at Talk:Browser game, involved parties may decide primary location of discussion.)

Hi all, I'm Soltak and I'm here in response to the request for mediation made by Moocats here.

First, let me say that this process is informal and non-binding. My job is to mediate and try to reach a consensus that leaves everyone happy. I won't be offering any opinions unless directly asked for one. Instead, I'll be pointing out various Wikipedia policies and guiding the discussion.

The problem here appears to revolve around various edits and reverts made to List of browser games and Browser game. What I'd like to see below is each party cited in the request (Moocats and User:Jasonblake69) explaining their side of the issue. Please remember to be civil and avoid personal attacks. Soltak | Talk 19:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Terminated
It is the nature of mediation that both parties must respond, discuss their views, and be willing make compromises. As User:JasonBlake69 has decided not to respond to the request for mediation, it is impossible for it to continue. I would note, however, that the disputed behavior mediation was intended to address has since ceased.

As only one party has responded to the MEDCAB request, mediation is terminated without prejudice. If both parties wish to engage in the process sometime in the future, I would be happy to officiate. Simply notify me on my talk page. Soltak | Talk 00:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

User:84.169.225.232
User:84.169.225.232 has attempted to insert their own referer link into the page List of Browser Games for the record. The link was "?link_ea_176". A common allowed practice in games is to get a reward for getting your friends to sign up, and therefore you list referer links for them which will credit their friends account. However wikipedia is not the place for such things, and I'm quite sure the game disallows it. I am reporting this incident to the website owner as well. -Moocats 00:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Crimson Warfare
The reason I removed crimson warfare is because it is mainly considered a game under the category Category:Flash_games. I believe these games to be seperate from Browser games because of the dissimalarity used in technologies. I also believe a line must be driven between categories of games, especially when flash games are so numerous and easy to make, compared to browser games which require extensive knowledge of a high order language.

Flash games have a category already (as posted above). The only thing you would need to do is create an article for the category and attach the tag to the article to get it listed in there. I also wanted to seperate the difference between Browser games and Flash games because there are many sites (many) dedicated to hosting massive lists of such games. A lot of people want to promote what they believe is a "good" flash game site, however, these are SO numerous as to be nearly inconsequential in consideration of the market as a whole. I was not trying to attack you, but more trying to guide you into creating an article for Flash games or a list of flash games (like this list) or perhaps even just an article of the game in question so it could be added to the Flash game category that already exists. -Moocats 16:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Although I understand what you are insinuating, however it isn't a reason to delete a "browser game" from a list of "browser games" <- this sentence alone says everything. All browser games require plug-ins, the current list are all plug-in based games whether they were difficult to develop or not. This is an article about list of browser games and it SHOULD contain a list of browser games (notable games at the least). -Jasonblake69 21:44, 2 February 2006 (EST)


 * Articles should be placed under the area they are most specifically related to, however I will concede this point due to the fact there is no similar list for Flash games at this time. However, would you agree that it would be better suited under a list of Flash games if such a list were made available in the future?


 * Also, all browser games do not require plug-ins. PHP based games are entirely server side and require nothing from the user at all and are compatible with all browsers regardless of how old or different they are.  The same applies to ASP based games, some .NET based games and any other server-side language based games.  Flash requires you to download a plugin for your browser in order to run as does Shockwave and Java (not Javascript).  The only game on here currently utilizing a plugin for it's entire structure is Crimson Warfare, which was my previous point however I have agreed to let it stay since no other more fitting home currently exists for it. -Moocats 12:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your concession regarding the Crimson Warfare game. When I find more time, I'll go ahead and create an article for it. Cheers, -Jasonblake69 21:38, 2 February 2006 (EST)

Creation
I created the List of browser games on the suggestion of another wiki member with the intent to allow wikipedians to continue adding what more or less amounted to "favorite" links as long as they kept within the realm of browser games. The term browser game to me has become synonomys (sp) with TEXT based browser games, games such as or  (Pardus_(game))and NOT games based in Flash as they tend to be very closely associated with spam sites and usually don't even have a page of their own much less an article of their own such as the games at. Perhaps it was a bad idea overall to have a page where people could link their games, and in fact I recently found another whole Category of browser based games Category:Browser-based games. Perhaps it would be if this page was simply deleted as I do not feel compeled to keep another person's creation so meticulously updated. -Moocats 20:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * When a category is present, lists are usually eliminated. However, this isn't just a list of game names, it also includes information such as genre, cost, and release date. Due to this, the list could survive as an addition to Category:Browser-based games. It should, however, be added to that category and expanded to include all of the games featured in said category. Soltak | Talk 20:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm of the opinion this should be deleted, as were other incarnations of the same, and for the same reason.   ◄  ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ  ►  14:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

AfD discussion
Articles_for_deletion/List_of_multiplayer_browser_games  (aeropagitica)   12:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

LIST OF WIKIPEDIA-LISTED WEB BASED GAMES?!
Hi guys, not to be a bitch but TDZK cease to exist after mr. Peephole AfDed it's entry to hell. Entire list looks more like "Peephole's to be wiped targetlist" than a gaming entry. Moreover, notion to "keep the blue links only is pure idiocy - I just ran trough it and NOT A SINGLE FUCKING ENTRY METS WP:WEB. Oops... Anyway guys, either clean this entire mess or delete every entry from this list. Or ban Peephole, that will work too.


 * Instead of complaining about it, you can help to fix it by taking out those links you find inappropriate to the subject. If it doesn't fit the simple requirements of being a multiplayer browser game you can remove it.  No need to wipe anything, just clean it up as you would any other article. -Moocats 12:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Just went through the list, apparently people have taken care of most of those issues you mentioned. I only had to remove two redlinks and two non-multiplayer games. -Moocats 12:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Sort
needs sorting into alphabetical order :) ThunderGold 20:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Response to the removal of Route to Destiny
Guys, you really are a pain in the ass. Yes, the article has been removed for a short period of time, but it's back now, and valid. So please stop removing "the red links because they look ugly". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daedeloth (talk • contribs)
 * Be civil
 * Sign your posts with four tildes ( ~ )
 * The reasons are related to advertising within Wikipedia, particular for games with no secondary sources and those that do not meet WP:WEB. --Wafulz 02:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Backing this up - it's not about being a pain, it's about keeping this article free of advertising spam. It's the only way that it survived being deleted - see the section here entitled AFD discussion.  MLA 23:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

German Page
Can sb help me with the german list whith the facts in the table, that it is full an the list gets not deletet, wehen it's finished. And it doesn't care when it is in englisch, because i can replace it by the german, but i don't know the facts. I hope that you all can understand me. so please help me whith the website. --Marci Diss —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.216.78.114 (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Opening Sentence
I'm just responding to Walfulz comment that having a wikipedia article implies notability. I'd say recent reviews of a lot of articles has proven that just because there IS an article, it doesn't necessarily follow that the game is actually notable. DarkSaber2k 16:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Writing "notable" in the sentence is pointless, because then listing it on this article also makes it notable by the definition of the sentence. The general consensus on article styling and naming conventions is to exclude the words "notable", "famous", etc, from titles and opening sentences for the sake of neutrality and simplicity. --Wafulz 16:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I'm just concerned it's going to encourage to people to write any old crud in article to get the game onto the list. Guess it'll give me something to do though! DarkSaber2k 16:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to the removal of Cthulhu Nation
For some reason the game "Cthulhu Nation" was taken off the list with the reason "there is no article", yet there is an article on it which can be found by handily clicking the link I've put back onto the list. I apologize that I didn't "undo" the changes instead, as I was uncertain if I had in fact previously added the game...then I realized it posted me under my IP address rather than user name, and then it had been deleted by another. PseudoSherlock 15:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I probably had an older version of the page open. The link was added prior to the article's creation.-Wafulz 16:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's sort of what I figured and left a Talk message on your personal page to that effect. Sorry about the cart before the horse mistake. All rectified now! PseudoSherlock 16:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ankhet
Now that we have an article up, is it alright if I add it back?Gwendolyr 16:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes - so long as the article exists, it's fine to link to it. --McGeddon 16:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

thecrims.com
please add thecrims to the list, the website is www.thecrims.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.1.127 (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Both The Crims and Tribal Wars, whilst popular, are not currently notable (and have had articles in the past which have been deleted). So at this time, they won't be added to the list. Marasmusine (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

some add tribal wars
someone add this: http://tribalwars.net/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corevette (talk • contribs) 01:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

thank you!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.28.14 (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Im not sure how to add to tables so could someone else do it?
i looked through the table and it's not really that good a list and i have some games to add - Tribal Wars - www.tribalwars.net - realtime - free (paid available)- InnoGames GmBh, Ikariam - ikariam.org - realtime - free - Gameforge, gladiatus - (don't know url)- realtime - free (paid available)- Gameforge, darkwarriors - www.dark-warriors.net - turn - free - (don't know company), battledawn - www.battledawn.com - tick - free (paid available) - Tacticsoft LTD,

Kcollis (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Tribal Wars was added and constantly removed since it doesn't has article. So write article about it first (and make sure it is good, or it will be remove again once deleted). L-Zwei (talk) 04:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Kcollis (talk) 12:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't, i tried - it's been locked because too many people have tried to do it only to have the page deleted - i have started to create an Ikariam page.


 * Hi Kcollins, whilst creating the articles please bear in mind our minimum threshold for WP:Notability (if the game has had a couple of reviews from reliable sources, that should be enough). Let me know if you need any help. Marasmusine (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ikariam now has its own wiki and the ikariam page has been deleted, does that mean the entry on the list of multiplayer browser games gets deleted?Kcollis (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Tinywarz?
Um, you guys ARE aware that this is an actual game right? the link is. I fail to see why it isn't in the list. - LR on 21/9/06 at 2.15pm
 * If it has no wiki page it cannot be on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcollis (talk • contribs) 20:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

ForumWarz is made with Ruby on Rails (technology)
http://www.forumwarz.com/about this is my first attempt to add something to wikipedia, sorry if I haven't done it right. Matthijs.Groen (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Addition of Tribalwars :)
I wish to request the adding of Tribalwars to the table on the article page. I believe that the game is definately well known and is known by many of the English gaming community. If the application is accepted then the information will be given on approval. Thanks! --Oscardog1991 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No article = no inclusion. Been there, done that. L-Zwei (talk) 05:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes but our article was deleted, and for that matter without a valid reason. Tribalwars has plenty of awards but because it is German produced they are not recognised so much in the english community. If the page was re-instated and the information was updated then i think it should be included, agreed? --Oscardog1991 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oscardog, if you want to do an article on tribal wars, make one and be sure you add in an 'in development' stub so you can get your notability in before it gets a deletion tag! It doesn't matter if the notability is in German, as long as you have the notability, whatever language, that should be fine - someone found a review in polish that might be of help, its in the archived deletion debate, i was reading through it earlier and see no reason that the tribal wars article should of been deleted - although i didnt see it, someone could of just rewritten it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcollis (talk • contribs) 14:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree completely. i feel that items should be allowed for inclusion here even if they do not have their own article. this is the best way to make this article a better resource for information. not doing so would exclude valuable information, and prevent Wikipedia from growing adaptively. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, that will increase this list to grow....into something similar to cancer. We will get 2000+ game spam links in few days with Tribal War buried in that bulk of links. Despite it sound cool to me, it will reduce usefulness of this list to nothing. L-Zwei (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If there's truly 2000 multiplayer browser games out there, we can handle that as it happens. i don't actually think it would be that many games of this type. I still feel that the policy here on this needs to become a little bit more flexible about this. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The WP:Notability guidelines do suggest that a subject may be suitable for inclusion in a broader article if it only has a single source satisfying the requirements (as opposed to multiple sources required for an article.) So I don't have a problem with listing some games here that might only have been reviewed from one site. I do object to listing games that have received no critical attention at all; Wikipedia is not a directory. Marasmusine (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * got it. that's extremely fair. thanks very much. will keep this in mind. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This was also discussed in 'Red Links' which is further up on this page - speaking of making articles, i cant find the in development tag, can someone give me the wiki markup for it please? Kiwi 20:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Duels
I think that Duels should be added to this list.--172.190.221.176 (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Empires of Galldon
Is there any way you can add http://empiresofgalldon.co.nr since it is a free to play browser based strategy made from html/php/mysql and the game is tick based set at 5 minutes. The game is in its fourth round currently and free to the public and all ages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevoboi (talk • contribs)


 * Not unless it meets inclusion criteria.-Wafulz (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Travian note
Hey all, I was just wondering why the note for Travian says "Need subscription"? Signing up for an account is needed at every game I think and this kinda suggest you need to pay to play - Which isn't true. MPlugge (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ikariam game needs to be added
Fun Age of Empires type browser game, http://www.ikariam.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaff88 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The Ikarian page was deleted when the Ikarian wiki came in, make a new article if you want it in and please read previous posts before posting as this has been mentioned! Kiwi 18:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcollis (talk • contribs)

Open Source
Is the GNU version of a multiplayer browser game, or any thing free like that so you can make your own? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitzyb1 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Red links removal?
I have noticed that a few people seem to have it out for red links. At least one of the times red links were removed was little more than 3 hours after someone had added two new games to the list. One can't even create a reasonable page about a game in that time! What is the point of a list if every time someone tries to update the list the entries are removed because there's no data "yet". Stop killing the red links, please. Some of the most popular browser games aren't even listed because of this. Aloriel 11:26 27 November 2006
 * Create an article first (or request it) and then list it. This is to keep the article from becoming a directory of webgames. --Wafulz 16:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't that the point of the list? It doesn't say on the list anywhere that this is a list of wikipedia entries that happen to be browser games. It says it's a list of browser games. That means directory in most versions of English... If it is supposed to be a listing of Wiki articles, then it should say so, otherwise why prevent it from becoming a directory? Aloriel 17:05, 27 November 2006
 * Because Wikipedia is not a directory. --Wafulz 17:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So then, shouldn't this list be called "An index of browser based game articles"? I'd hardly call it a "list" if it's restricted to only those that have entries, and thus incomplete because not every game has an article. Seeing this list being so incomplete made me want to add the browser games I was playing. Making sure it references articles didn't seem to be a part of the confines of the list. Not creating a directory isn't obvious to the average Wikipedia user who, like me, sees an incomplete list like this and wants to add something to it - as is obvious by the number of article edits this list has seen that have subsequently been undone. Making sure to name the "list" as an index of articles would reduce this. Aloriel 17:33, 27 November 2006
 * How about I just stick in a disclaimer that says "DO NOT ADD GAMES WITHOUT ARTICLES" in the source code? That would work and it would follow the format of the thousands of other lists on the site. --Wafulz 02:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason redlinks are removed is because the article for deletion nomination failed on the basis that they were. The reason that it is named a list is because it IS a list, semantics aside.  Wikipedia does not allow "advertising" and redlinks, without articles or information would be as such.  This allows users a chance to create articles of interest for people to persue, while also fulfilling the requirement that there be more than just random unverified links to pages that may or may not even be finished with no information otherwise.  Having been a visitor of many BBGs over the years, I can say from experience that there are quite a few out there that don't even have a FAQ, much less an introduction to what their generic turn-based game is before their register/login page, which doesn't let the user know much about it.  This means the author has to create an informational page on which to host their article and helps sort out those games which have little to no history or background from those that do.  Is it perfect?  No.  Does it work?  Yes. -Moocats 22:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what you're talking about- are you suggesting we should continue removing redlinks or not? --Wafulz 02:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, removal of redlinks is vital to this page's continued existance. That was the consensus of the article for deletion discussion. -Moocats 12:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, i disagree completely. i feel that items should be allowed for inclusion here even if they do not have their own entries. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I too disagree with this policy. Some games are not allowed pages as they are to new. Some games that have been out for a year still are not represented with articles, yet they get deleted. Lloyd (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. It seems there are some people who think Wikipedia is purely there for them to exercise their egos by deleting valuable entries and adding spurious "citation required" tags. I think Wikipedia's purpose is to provide information. By all means correct mistakes, but useful information should never be deleted. There needs to be mechanism devised to prevent these malicious vandalising activities, being carried out in the name of pedantry.John259 (talk) 08:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC) On the whole I agree with L-Zwei. Also see Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates. List pages are primarily for navigation of the encylopedia, not to create directories of indiscriminate information. However, also see the final note in the above guideline. An entry may not have enough notability for it's own article, but might have enough notability for a list entry. It might be a moot point, as it seems game articles nowadays can be kept on fairly flimsy grounds of notability, but I don't have a problem with a redlink if citations are provided to show how the game might be notable. This way games of the "WootDunc'sNewBrowserGame" variety are kept off the list, but leaves room for development for borderline important titles. Marasmusine (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * mechanism devised to prevent these malicious vandalising activities is already there, that is the entry must have article. You rant on deletionist should go on your article's talk page. You can add any game, useful or not, to the list as long as it fit the category and providing article. I known there are lot of nice articles got deleted because of deletionist, but that has nothing to do with this list. The entry got removed because either its article never exist or already deleted. L-Zwei (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There are several other policies that strongly suggest removing links to non-notable games, such as WP:UNDUE. Essentially, if the subject is not notable enough to have it's own article, there's very little reason to mention it on a list like this, unless it's referenced by a reliable source.  (And, of course, if it is referenced, there should be enough information out there to create an article.  It's a two-way street.)  Ultimately, if redlinks are removed, [t]he burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

AQWorlds
Can AQWorlds be added? It is currently in Gamma testing, it is free (but paid is available), is in realtime and is run on flash, i would do it myself but i dont know how to :( La Kiwi 19:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcollis (talk • contribs)

Phosphor
Please add Phosphor by rasterwerks to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.40.112 (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Not original intentions
When the person first created this they said external links could be provided for games without a wikipedia page. It isn't really a list of browser-based game if only games with wikipedia articles are allowed. It would be a list of BBGs that meet wikipedia's notability standards. And I have played plenty of games that don't meet wikipedia requirements and are just as much, if not more, fun then games that do.

So QUIT DELETING WHAT PEOPLE ADD BECAUSE THERE IS NO ARTICLE. Go all the way back to the first thing in the history and compare it. Look at the first section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtjohnson260 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Inclusion criteria has changed long ago. Original author never has special authority over article (or in this case, list) in Wikipedia anyway. L-Zwei (talk) 08:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Redlinks inclusion
Can redlinks be added if I can prove that the game is notable using references? Talking about sources, the article really needs more sources. --Joshua Issac (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The standard I usually see is a) references from reliable sources, or preferably b) an article link, which should (theoretically) also include a). So yeah, I think that redlinks are fine as long as they're ultimately sourced. Wyatt Riot (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggest to rename to List of multiplayer browser games
I believe this title is in fact what was desired when the article was created. The fact that the article contains information such as "Turn/Tick/Real-time" says it much; you won't find "turns" or "ticks" in simple flash games.

Plus, if one can include flash games into this "list of browser games", have a search on miniclip.com or 2flashgames.com and there will be literally more than hundred of thousands of games waiting to be added. Hence I moved the title to a more proper one. -- G.S.K.Lee 17:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree and that was my original intention when creating this page. Thanks for clearing it up :) -Moocats 17:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * AdventureQuest is actually a single-player RPG. And what about Neopets? The Battledome allows fights between the pets of two players, and people can place their items up for sale, trade or auction for other players to buy or bid on. With over 100 million players, there's no doubt that Neopets is notable (it was even featured in the Singapore newspapers several times). --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yea why did you remove the games they mentioned above also where is stick arena! There is now stick arena ballistick someone can write about I would but im lazy and dont know how XP. So yea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.251.50 (talk) 06:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Other games
http://www.poxnora.com http://register.outspark.com/solstice/?src=CSI&kyd=Solstice:2008FriendsMonstBattleMsg:125x125:10000:0&agp=125x125&lp=10000&aff=673 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.166.74 (talk) 09:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC) MechQuest, ...

I also saw many contributions were deleted (eg Ars Regendi, ....) perhaps all of these games may be again reinserted or put into more extensive article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.166.74 (talk) 09:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The West and PoxNora aren't listed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.191.144 (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge with ChallengeYou?
What the...since this list only provide basic info, as we only include games with article. Is this mean we will have dramitic change to the list by including short description of minor games? Problem is, it will eventually lead to inclusion of tons and tons of non-notable entries, increasing chance that the list will be deleted.

Well, I will stick to current method. If the entries redirect to this list, it will be removed for being non-notable. L-Zwei (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So it come and I don't see any point. The is no article, no summary, in other words - not notable. I will wait until Sunday, I remove it unless somebody manage to made the entry useful. This list isn't trash bin that anyone can add unwant stuff. L-Zwei (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Done, I take the lacking of response as proof that it's really non-notable. L-Zwei (talk) 06:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

My Brute
Add My Brute. www.mybrute.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.217.27.160 (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Putting the redlinks issue back on the table
I'd just like to say, the standard of "no article, no listing" has not been used anywhere in the endless collection of lists already present on WP. See Lists of video games, which contains we. A large proportion of these lists are 20% redlinks or more. The standard of "WP:DIRECTORY" is being misconstrued: this is not about a "loosely associated topic" but a specific one, it is not a phonebook or programming guide, sales guide, "cross-categorization", or complete exposition of all details. Including redlinks follows the same standard as every other list. Finally, as for advertising... well that is a non-issue. What is the negative effect of someone putting a multiplayer browser game on a list of... well... multiplayer browser games? Nog lorp (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The "no article, no inclusion" also applied in List of role-playing games by genre (save for two entries which are parts of larger series). And the lists in Lists of video games that contain red links are list of commecial games which is much more notable. The free games lists (List of free massively multiplayer online games, List of freeware video games and List of commercial video games released as freeware), alway has "no article, no inclusion" standard and this article, also including free to play games. "What is the negative effect of someone putting a multiplayer browser game on a list of... well... multiplayer browser games?" You ask? It's spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam and never ending spam. L-Zwei (talk) 07:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by spam? It is only spam if it is unwanted. This begs the question of why it is unwanted. Is it unwanted because it is spam and spam because it is unwanted? Seems to me, as someone who occasionally browses such lists for ideas of games to play, that this list is incredibly lacking and in need of content. Nog lorp (talk) 10:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think you're looking at this the wrong way. We're here to build an encyclopedia based on reliable sources, and 90% of the games out there are unremarkable in every way, including being referenced in the sources that we value. WP:V makes it clear that we should build based on "verifiability, not truth", not "let's make a list of everything everybody can think of" or "point gamers towards the games they should play". And besides that, I believe that allowing redlinks on list pages goes against the spirit of WP:UNDUE by giving remarkable and unremarkable subjects the same weight. At least in an article, you can offset that by favoring the remarkable subject with a higher word count, but that's simply not possible on a list. Of course, just my $0.02. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Turn-based and Real-time links
Turn-based game redirects to Time-keeping systems in games

Should Real-time then be made to redirect to Time-keeping systems in games? — H3llkn0wz ▎talk 00:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say so, yes. A few instances link to Real-time strategy, which may not always be the case.  I'm also concerned about overlinking.  My preference would be to link the first instance of "turn-based", the first of "real-time", etc.  Wyatt Riot (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As the list can be sorted (and the links won't be first instance anymore), I put them in the intro section of the article. — H3llkn0wz ▎talk 21:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, good call! Wyatt Riot (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

question
ummmm...guys? where is Runescape? shouldn't it kinda be on this list?? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Free Realms wasn't a browser game at all. It's a down loadable game. Runescape isn't here because this isn't a list of Flash games.... there are thousands, although Runescape has a lot in common with many browser games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.234.82 (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Facebook Apps
I was wondering if we should open either a section or even a page to list Facebook Apps. In a way, they are browser-based games, but within a particular framework.

Besides, they are "multiplayer" in that you can boast your achievements to a larde number of people and also in that the number of friends you have invited to that game matters to your overall choices and performance.

But they are also single-player because they are asynchronous and basically you are playing all on your own without a direct interaction with fellow players. The only interactions are through your wall and invites, and that brings the question back to the framework and whether Facebook games are simply browser games or deserve a section/page of their own.

Chealar (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If a specific app is notable (has a pre-existing Wikipedia page), then yes. Jephir (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole "multiplayer" aspect is troublesome and I really don't think most games of this kind qualify. Some solitaire browser games, for instance, display scores/accomplishments, rankings, have invite systems, and so on. There could potentially be hundreds or thousands of other players on at the same time, but they're not truly multiplayer in that you never truly interact with the other players. Wyatt Riot (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes the multiplayer is somewhat questionable, hence my inclination to creating a entirely different page, apart from both browser games and multiplayer browser games. And we can't contest that some of these games are pretty notable both in terms of number of players and of media presence.Chealar (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability is established by coverage in independent sources, not number of players. If an app has its own Wikipedia page, then it is notable enough to be included in a list. Otherwise, the app should not be listed. As a result, there are probably not enough notable Facebook apps to warrant having their own list. Jephir (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Syndicate
Why do you keep deleting Syndicate? Keep your mucky, grubby fingers off my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.228.64 (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

add other managing games
Hi guys (and girls) i would like to propose to you to add those games :

- could you add holy-war.net? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.132.57.223 (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ourworld, tribalwars? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.203.183.27 (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

- http://www.sokker.org : the concurrent of hattrick. There are always big debates in theirs forums to determine which one is better !

- www.powerplaymanager.com : a new player in browser managing games. In the future they want to propose multisports possibilities but they just launch their final hockey version and it is a good one. (looks like the link or ppm.powerplaymanager.com is blacklisted and i don't know why)

- http://www.hockeyarena.net : a hockey game, very complete and which is here since a long time.

Ok that will be it. Thanks for taking in consideration those games.

69.172.110.159 (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Joker4ever

Color coding
I'm a big proponent of color coding tables when it helps digest information. I think the color-coding of realtime vs. turn based games is a good idea. I think another important item of information is the status of a game (live or offline/defunct). The information is already included in a column on the table, but how about if we also color-code the row based on it's status? It would look something like this:

As you can see, the defunct game is in a darker shade of gray. As an alternative, we could just change the color of the column to a darker shade, leaving the rest of the row untouched:

I prefer the whole row approach, but I'm open to either. The color coding really makes the status very apparent. Of course, this raises the question, "if we have the color coding for the row, why include the closed status in the text at all?" In the List of video game publishers, we have a legend that defines the two colors used. Thoughts? Opposition? — Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | Talk 14:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Remembering a game from ~2001
I played a game that would definitely fit under this list back in the early 2000s, that I've just recently remembered. Does anyone remember the game that looked a lot like Sim City, but was played multiplayer in a browser? If I remember correctly, it was a commerce focused game, where you made an empire (maybe that was part of the name?) of businesses. I feel like I remember doing things like looking at a map of consumer demand for different types of services (restaurants, dry cleaning) and finding property to build a business to meet the demands. Ring any bells?

2602:306:CC21:CFA0:A811:BCD9:A51D:CE01 (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)