Talk:Shot Online

Disconnection controversy

As I expected, not an hour went by without someone removing the Disconnection Controversy. It is a valid thing to know about this game, and is an ongoing historical phenomenon. If you think any of the facts are incorrect, I suggest you visit the Free Board and verify for yourself. DevLaVaca 03:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's a start I suppose. It has way too much happy marketing-speak and too much non-essential info. Like, it seems silly to provide a strategy for only Hole #1 of each course. But let's make an honest attempt to improve what's there rather than just mock it and vandalize it, shall we?

Come on...this is another blatant show of Onnet's lazy approach to servicing this game. User submitted data? That's what all the fansites are for. This is retarded just like the game.

Its a start! The guides were intended to be modified and added to by people who are experienced in the game. However, covering 18 holes of each course, step by step... would be mundane. Some people might find it useful though

The game had the potential of being one of the greatest on-line games. It has great realism and gameplay. The roleplaying aspect, clubs and clothing that give you extra power, the silly running around in an imaginary world, are totally useless to the pure sports-gamer.

The images are bad. The game screenshots are way too small to see, and the pictures of

character types are unnecessarily big.

Shot Online needs to listen, and I hate it.

PoV, credit card controversy

is it just me, or does most of this article seem POV in favor of shot online? also, i'd like some information on the "credit card controversy"

Calculator plug

Shameless Plug: I added a link to my own Shot Online Calculator page (FA - 31st Of July 2006)

Wikipedia appropriateness

Is the style this is written, and possibly even content, appropriate for wikipedia? Wikipedia should be telling people the game exists and what it is about. It shouldn't be a guide on how to play. Rhialto 07:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. According to Wikipedia policy (see WP:NOT#IINFO), "Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain 'how-to's. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes." Vandelay 09:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. I am going to take the action to mildly clean up this page over the next few days and may delete/reword some of the structure which is just a straight up tutorial in some cases. I also feel the external links is turning into a giant list of guilds. Virek 12:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I made a big attempt to wikify this page. I most likely didn't get everything so please check it over. Virek 09:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. This wiki is very similar to the wiki format of World of Warcraft. I do not think any of the sections in here are classified as instruction manual, tutorials, or walk-throughs. LanaG 16:17, 20 May 2008.

This article has waaaaay more detail than the World of Warcraft article. It's also obvious that the people who run the game have contributed significant content which goes against WP:COI. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

- Not to ruin the illusion but as far as I know none of this was written by staff at GC. Theultimateend (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Aaaand you've reverted again. I've placed tags on the article highlighting its many issues. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note I'm removing copyrighted text found on other websites. Restoring this text would be a violation of WP:COPYVIO which is strict policy. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I was going to remove some of that stuff as well. It's not entirely accurate to state that it had "waaaaay" more detail than the World of Warcraft wiki. We're talking about 70Kb of info on World of Warcraft compared to 30Kb on Shot-Online. It would have been much easier on both of us if you just removed the specific contents in violation rather than the entire page itself. LanaG 00:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

added the {{cleanup|section|date=January 2009}} tag :kaljtgg

Put nowiki tag aroudn the cleanup tag. looks OK IMHO. RJFJR (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

GamesCampus, Xiah

Since the producers of this game also came out with Xiah, when that finally gets a wiki then we can make a category for GamesCampus as a company :) Tyciol 13:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Notability

I have reset the date counter of the notability tag from May 2007 to June 2008. The notability question can't be sorted at this time I think. On the one hand side, the article is still not based on independent sources, so that notability is in question per WP:N. On the other hand, the article has just gone through the WP:AFD process and cannot be nominated for deletion at this time. However, if it turns out that no one is interested in writing an encyclopedic article here, I would support a second nomination at a later time. --B. Wolterding (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing better to do, so tonight I will wikify this page. I use to play the game a good amount and I believe it's notable (I will also go grab some references later).Virek (talk) 03:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The characters section is completely unencyclopedic and a copyvio to boot [1]. Please be careful in re-adding content that was previously removed. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I cut the page down to get rid of all the unencyclepedic content. I will get additional sources later as I'm at work and all the game news websites are blocked :) Virek (talk) 07:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've revamped the article. I have removed maintenance tags. Please re-add tags as necessary. Virek (talk) 09:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)