Talk:The Club (Nickelodeon)

Games Section
I think we need to build out a games section with all the games you can play inside Nicktropolis. --Charlie Allnut 03:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You tried it, and it's been removed.  JONJONBT  talk • homemade userboxes  01:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please Note - All the other MMOG's targeted to kids have a games section. Look at Club Penguin's Article. They list all the Mini-Games. Look at VMK's Article. They list games too. I'm following their lead on what to include into the Nicktropolis article. Charlie Allnut Spongebob Carnival Games? Tak85 22:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Tak85
 * Yes, but you are failing to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:ADVERT. I reccommend you read those.  J  ( T • C ) 15:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Scratch all that. The games section is what we were looking for now. Cheers,     [[Image:Jonathan graphic.png|66px|]] 23:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

MMORPG?
I thought Nicktropolis was just an MMOG. I didn't know it had roleplay. GKMorse 00:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It kinda is since you transform into a certain look based on the Nicktoon show that you're in (like a fish in Bikini Bottom). --SpongeSebastian 03:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Or a juju in Pupunuunuu Village? Tak85 20:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Tak85

"BackPack" Launches?
Where is this BackPack? i don't see it KanuT 17:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Click on the new my backpack button. Tak85 20:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Tak85

Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of October 2, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Bloated lists that could be merged into the article proper vastly overwhelm the article's short prose. The explicitly named WP:TRIVIA section and the rest of the massive bulleted lists all warrant review and attempts to merge them into the article proper. Some of the changes should be fairly simple - For instance, the unsourced population note in the Trivia section is duplicated above in the article. If there's a press release to back up the newer, larger number, it should be trivial to replace the earlier, smaller number.
 * 3. & 4. Broad in coverage & NPOV?: Lacks adequate third party coverage to demonstrate neutrality and breadth of coverage.
 * 5. Article stability? Considerable recent growth requires review per point one.
 * 6. Images?: Few present, although understandable that few free images can be obtained.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment. Thank you for your work so far. MrZaius talk  17:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm working on it.  Cheers, Jonathan t - c 00:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Per item #6 they do have an image gallery up on the site: http://www.nick.com/nicktropolis/image/ - Charlie Allnut —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie allnut (talk • contribs) 16:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see our Fair use guidelines before adding them, though - aside from teh logo for the site, few Fair use images are likely to be usable, barrign third party commentary thereon. Item #6 was the least important member of the list, given that very few GFDL/public domain images from Nicktroplis can be expected to exist. MrZaius  talk  16:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Peer review
See top of page.  Cheers, Jonathan t - c 01:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Backpack Mixing
Does anyone know some ingredients to make spells or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.61.253.99 (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Zones in the Article
I propose we treat all the zones like we are doing with Nicktoons Blvd. There are so many other rooms and zones in the none Nick brand areas. I think we should expose those in the same format. Or conversely change the Nicktoons BLVD section in the article to match the other section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie allnut (talk • contribs) 17:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Nominee.
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, compares against the six good article criteria:

*Well written?:
 * 1) lead sections [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]]
 * 2) layout [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]]
 * 3) jargon [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]]
 * 4) words to avoid [[Image:Symbol wait.svg|15px]]
 * 5) fiction [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]]
 * 6) list incorporation [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]]


 * Broad in coverage?: [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] This article is broad in coverage


 * Neutral point of view?: [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] The article counts on a very good neutral point of view.


 * Stability of the article?: [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Not the subject of any recent or on-going edit wars.


 * Images?: [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] The deficiency of images is not a step/criteria of fall. Anyway, the images have a very good quality and a Fair Use Rationale template.


 * Comment: In many ways, this is almost a good article. The illustrations are well-chosen, and the information is well-cited. The writing style is - except for the words to avoid and the   - clear and well-written.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note below showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Macys123, 18:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Jonathan has asked me to come here even though Macys was just doing the review a few hours before he lodged a request on my talk page. I don't want to step on any toes, but if I was in the position of reviewing this article, it would fail strongly because of a lack of citations, lead and specific FU paperwork for the photos.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 02:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Providing yet another opinion, this article doesn't even come close to the Good Article criteria. Maybe with respect to the stability criteria, but that's really about it. A brief summary of some of the issues includes:


 * The lead section does not provide an adequate summary of the article (it's way too short). Recommend taking a look at WP:LEAD.
 *  J ONATHAN  Go green ! 23:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Insufficient citations. Most of the article is without any source whatsoever. The references are formatted according to WP:CITE, however, so that's a plus. But there's still a whole lot of WP:OR in here, and citations are needed for any unsourced information.
 * — but most of the refs are just about the launch.  J ONATHAN  Go green ! 23:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There's several dates in the article that are not formatted in accordance with the manual of style. Full dates should be wikilinked, so that they work with user's date preferences. As an additional note, single years and month/day combinations should not be wikilinked.
 *  J ONATHAN  Go green ! 23:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What's the purpose of the 'criticism' section; it's far too short, and doesn't really say anything. The only source is a forum site? Hello, WP:RS?
 *  J ONATHAN  Go green ! 23:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The 'Places' section; this is really not written very well at all. First, it's just a collection of mainly list items with very short descriptions, probably copyvios from the original website anyway. Secondly, it's very confusing with all of the 2nd and 3rd and 4th level headings, and all of these headings are very long, making the table of contents very difficult to read. Section headers should be short and concise, and provide a good 3-4 word summary of the section as a whole. Wikilinks also should not be used within section headers. Please see WP:MSH for tips here.
 * — Also, these really can't be a copyvio, as the website does not list the places, nor does anyone else. Meh.  J ONATHAN  Go green ! 23:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Integration of NickPoints'; WTF? Not sure of the purpose of this section to the article. It's unsourced, so fails WP:V, and the section header title is a violation of WP:MSH.
 *  J ONATHAN  Go green ! 23:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Message boards'; Not much purpose to this section either. It's really written like an advertisement to the message boards, and just not very interesting. There's no sources or citations.
 *  J ONATHAN  Go green ! 23:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As an additional note, all of the images are non-free, fair-use images. While there is a fair-use rationale, it would be nice of the article had some free images in it. Although this might not be possible for a video game article.

As it stands, I'd probably grade this article as Start-class. It has quite a way to go before GA-class. Dr. Cash 06:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say per above, as Dr Cash took the time to write things out properly.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 03:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As I fix these issues, I am marking my progress by adding, so I can see what I've done and what I still need to do. Bye!  J ONATHAN  Go green ! 23:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Club Penguin
The article on Club Penguin seems to be similar in topic to Nicktropolis. The contributing editors might want to get some ideas from it. However, both articles seem to be Start Class. I suggest that the contributing editors look through the list of GA video games - Good articles - and find one that is similar to Nicktropolis. For example, perhaps Eragon (video game) is similar. I think the editors will notice areas in Nicktropolis that could be worked on by the comparison. The editors might want to work on Club Penguin and Nicktropolis at the same time because it sometimes helps: when stuck for what to do in one, you can work on the other. Anyway, the editors seem really motivated so good luck and good work. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 17:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

2nd GA review
Quick-failing for lack of verifiability. Besides, some of last review's problems have yet to be adressed: Also:
 * There are several dates in the article that are not formatted in accordance with the manual of style. Full dates should be wikilinked, so that they work with user's date preferences. As an additional note, single years and month/day combinations should not be wikilinked.
 * Insufficient citations.
 * The lead section does not summarise the whole article.
 * "Comparison" and "In the news" are 100% WP:WEASEL.
 * The references are not all in the same format.
 * The "Places" section is written like a list, you should either expand each section (maybe explaining what happens on each stage?) or try and merge it all in a couple of paragraphs.


 * Please take a look at Guide to writing better articles and What is a good article? before renominating. Thanks for your work so far.  :)   -Yamanbaiia (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Places Section
There are no refs...I've searched pretty much everywhere. The only possible ref would be the game; and the exact links for each room are very difficult to find. So, for now...we'll just have to try and see where we end up with testing the "nav=*" links.  Jonathan T • @ • C 17:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Working on spoken article...
I'm working on a spoken article for this, it may be finished today or tomorrow. Thanks! — Jonathan 00:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delayed a bit. — Jonathan 01:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Aliens
As a child, I sometimes use Nicktropolis. And I am currently very dissapointed of the person who created that page for not updating what the Floops have done to the Nicktropolis on Earth.

Pumagirl7 (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't for general discussion. Please use the message boards at Nick.com. Sorry! ''' Jon athan  02:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Child Feedback
Well, I am a member of Nick Online, and viewing the official forums, I see a lot of kids complaining. And this is probably just the tip of the iceburg, as the forums are mod-previewed (Nick employees view the posts before being put up and don't feature anything innapropriate or presumably criticizing Nick). Kids are demanding the Dictionary be taken off, saying that it simply is missing many vital words (eg. Crystal). Not sure if this allowed under Wikipedia's policies, but this probably should be mentioned. What do you think? Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page. Jon How's the weather? - talk about me behind my back 23:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

nicktropolis news
there is now a war going on nick. the battle is the autobots (my team)vs the desepicons that is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevor515 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this isn't a forum. Please use a real forum elsewhere. -phobia don't be afraid to drop a line! 00:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

What?
Could someone with more knowledge of the game make sense of this section from the article. I would change it myself but I couldn't figure out what the author was trying to say.

"The only section in TeeNick Point, the Naked Brothers Band, consists of the Fuzzy Room, Apartment, and The Studio. In the "Fuzzy Room", players put up a disco ball and dance. In "Apartment" users can play the guitar, piano, and drums, though this feature is no longer on, plus the jukebox that was used to hear NBB music is shown, as "destroyed". They can also play the Naked Brothers game "In Girl Trouble"[15], and listen to full-length songs, though this can no longer be used, because the jukebox is shown as destroyed. In the "Studio" users can look at the band's instruments and make a mash-up, this feature is also lost. In November 2008, an iCarly section was added with two parts of the webshow studio and Carly's apartment." Paycheckgurl (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Benie21 is my guy!
Benie21 is my guy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.183.217 (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

nicktropolis
when i put Edit room then i put book bag.i try to put mix but it is not working —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.167.167 (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)