Jump to content

Talk:OMGPop

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Omgpop)

Relevance

[edit]
  1. Listing all the games is irrelevant and redundant. This is not an ad. The article is constantly being reverted to the former. Compare:

Current: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omgpop&oldid=347478015 / Without ad section: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omgpop&oldid=347429907

79.214.184.229 (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Why should every game be listed? This looks all but relevant and neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.214.190.52 (talk) 04:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the article should exist, it should tell what it has. If not every game is listed, then it's incomplete. If they aren't listed at all, it's inaccurate as this isn't anything like addicting games or armor games where there are hundreds of games on site.Tenebrous Night (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. They are "[C]asual online" games that are adaptions of already known games. Sites like these aren't anything unusual. What is special is that it's written in Flash and that OmgPop focusses on community-features. A list of all the games is like listing every pizza Pizza Hut has to offer. 192.124.246.177 (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THIS SITE IS A EASY WAY TO MEET PEDOPHILES, AND MAY EVEN BE RUN BY THEM!, DONT JOIN IF YOU ARE THINKING OUT IT! DUMBEST IDEA I EVER HAD, plus i made the stupidest choice in the world becuase of this site. frist you will get addicted, then think everyone is true, then start to trust everyone you meet, hand out your number, then you wil get raped!! dont join!! beware of this site!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.61.38.240 (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a giant free ad.

[edit]

Nothing to add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.214.182.104 (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in like with you has a new name: OMGPOP. The article should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asiertxu93 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like IP 24.103.243.138 probably is an OMGPOP developer... Longliveemomusic (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chat Games, Crew, Pictureclub

[edit]

This article does not mention anything about chat games, nor the involvement of Crew Members on the website. Also, it doesn't mention anything whatsoever about Pictureclub.

CelineDeStar (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This is regarding the recent attempts by the anonymous IP to canvas this article with links to OMGPOP games. They were continually removed because that is against Wikipedia policies on usage of external links, references, and against the purpose of the Wikipedia article in general. This article does not exist as a web directory for OMGPOP games, per policy it exists for information regarding OMGPOP itself. Wikipedia does not exist as a web directory. Likewise you followed it up with further advertising on this talk page, also against policy. Continuing to try and forcefully add you advertising spam is seen as disruptive editing and can result in a blocking of the ip. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long list of games

[edit]

Just to make everyone aware, there is a discussion going on regarding the cutting of the inappropriate list of games here. Articles on game companies and services on Wikipedia are about the company/service itself and not a large advertising listing of games available on the site. Games are only mentioned in an article like this relevance to its notability for the company or service itself, and not simply provided because they exist or to provide value for the sites service. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep the game list. People worked hard to make that list and it gives visitors info about the games on OMGPOP. -- Somebody —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.116.28 (talk) 01:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a directory of games and links to games, the article itself is about Omgpop itself. Likewise, none of the games listed satisfy WP:Notable except for the missile command one. We do not list games for a site simply because they exist. They have to be notable in relation to the service itself. Thirdly, prose is always the preferred form over lists. With all three in mind, that brings us to the current format. Likewise, this article is sorely lacking in reliable and notable references. Likewise, I'm sorry if a lot of people did good faith edits on here without being familiar with Wikiepdia's policies and guidelines. However, that is not grounds for keeping the content here unfortunately. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of games list

[edit]

I think we could probably merge List of Games on Omgpop into this article without any problems as an alternative to outright deleting the list as proposed above. Any thoughts? –MuZemike 06:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was not what was proposed. The list being discussed above was a completely different one which has since been edited and reformated down to what you are discussing about merging now. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move? (2010)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Omgpop → OMGPOP — Official capitalization →ΑΧΧΟΝΝfire 21:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tetris lawsuit against OMGPOP's previous Blockles version

[edit]

Should anything be included about that? JLMLSJLMLSJLMLS (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, here's a reference for it that meets Wikipedia's reliability policy. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not put user referral links in the article

[edit]

On the side of the article, under the picture of the logo, there is a link to the OMGPOP website. The link looks to be a users referral link. I checked the revision history of this article, and it looks like the link has been changed a few times somewhat recently, with different referral links.

As stated in this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOAP#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion

Please keep the link to just http://omgpop.com 99.141.0.137 (talk) 02:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close quotations mark

[edit]

The page is locked for editing, but the introductory sentence needs a close quotation mark (") after the "motto" of the website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.33.142 (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for pointing this out. - Sitush (talk) 12:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 10 August 2012

[edit]

I would like to edit this Wikipedia entry to include OMGPOP's newest, up-to-date features, furthermore I would like to improve by writing a list of the games and within this list I shall write a brief description of the games. EDITthewrongnesshere (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: You have to request your changes in an X to Y format, and we will do it for you. I've also taken the liberty of removing a space at the beginning that makes the request a long line of text and moved it to within the "Begin request" and "End request" lines. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 13:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of OMGPOP (game studio) vs OMGPOP.com website

[edit]

I'm going to make an edit to clarify the reported closure of the OMGPOP game studio and the OMGPOP website. The OMGPOP studio was closed by Zynga, announced on 2013-06-03. The OMGPOP.com website has not yet been announced to close, although it has experienced technical issues causing it to be temporarily offline, creating confusion for the previous editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeHF (talk • contribs) 08:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you please provide references for this information? I've reverted it for now as it's currently uncited. Thanks, Nikthestunned 09:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources now added. JoeHF (talk) 08:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I moved them to the end of sentences (this is almost always where refs go!) and filled in the citations. Good work Nikthestunned 08:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move (2013)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– OMGPOP (pronounced O-M-G-Pop) is usually spelled "OMGPOP", sometimes OMGPop and never "Omgpop". OMGPOP: [1] [2][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]; OMGPop: [9] [10]. I prefer the former over the later suggestion. Substandard capitalization has been the norm for years even if WP:MOSTM has only begun to admit it. Consider household terms like xkcd, WiMAX, danah boyd, elgooG, CNET, DEFCON, ooVoo, NeXT, TeX, etc. etc. etc. that routinely deviate from standard grammar. Relisted. BDD (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Against. How it's stylized (which is what's actually being discussed) is irrelevant and has no bearing on Wikipedia naming and styling conventions, the manual of style does. As you acknowledge WP:CAPS and MOS:TM are the sources for what we do here style wise, not the outside world and what Wikipedia is beginning to admit or not. What it currently states and how that's interpreted does. The fact that other pages exist here with stylizing that goes against the mos is irrelevant, it simply means they haven't been challenged or corrected yet (such as the case with cnet as evidenced by it's talk page). If you can do an rfc at the trademarks page to change the guidelines to allow this kind of a convention (or if the rfc leads to an interpretation of the guidelines that allows what you're suggesting) I'm behind you and your suggestion 100%. But I've seen this discussion play out way to many times on other pages, which is what leads to current stylizations like the one here or at Pong for instance (who's classic usage by the company has always been all caps for instance as well). --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't cite the company's preferred stylization as a factor in the move so I think you should strike that part of your comments. OMGPOP's opinion is not relevant to me, or you. Also Pong is a poor example for you to use because the vast majority of sources do not use all caps. Plus we have damn-good reason for ignoring the rules: seasoned rock-solid reasoning that has carried articles through other tricky proposed moves (Talk:NeXT#Requested_move) and is even now written into the policy itself (xkcd) As we all know, Wikipedia does not have hard-and-fast rules and as WP:WIARM advises, "[R]ules are ultimately descriptive, not prescriptive; they describe existing current practice. They sometimes lag behind the practices they describe." Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is hardly a household term, and the terms you point out are also hardly household terms. Ask your grandmother to identify any of them. It's not like it's iPhone or anything. And this is shutting down in a month, so will be even less of a household term -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Normally I hate name styling, and for the record I do hate this word styling. However, I can't ignore the fact that there is no reliable source usage for the current title. I got through 10 pages of google news hits[11] and 5 of google books[12] before concluding reliable source clearly show that: A) The current title has no reliable source; and B) The proposed version does.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support both. WP:TM is in something of a state of flux, and the examples ooVoo and Mitsubishi i-MiEV have now been removed, but they still continue at non-standard capitalisations, and the MOS currently still [13] reads in part Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official", as long as this is a style already in widespread use, rather than inventing a new one (my emphasis). The style of the current title is not already in widespread use, according to the evidence above, so according to the MOS it should be changed. Andrewa (talk) 07:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on OMGPop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draw My Thing ?

[edit]

`I think there is indeed a game called "Draw My Thing", but i see no evidence that there is or was a connection to Draw Something or OMGPop. I suspect it is either a joke or a typo, but I'm not invested either way. I'd suggest changing the reference in the top one or two paragraphs of "Draw My Thing" to "Draw Something" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paisan1 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was called Draw My Thing forever until the sale to Zynga when things had to become politically correct. If anything, Draw Something is the less relevant name. Same with Putt Putt Penguin - the real name of Putt My Penguin forever until the sale. 2A00:23C6:B891:4401:C449:B895:24C6:5B5 (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editing of the Article

[edit]

I would like to process the articles "OMGPOP this weekend and I need the approval of the authors to make small changes to improve it. (Add a link Tab) Voltexpoint (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:OMGPop&oldid=1213317686"