Talk:Hattrick (video game)

Hattrick nominated for MMOGCM

I have nominated Hattrick for the Massively Multiplayer Online Game Collaboration of the Month. Please take a second to look at Hattrick's nomination over at the MMOGCM nominations page. -DMurphy 23:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Material added by 80.86.98.234

This material does not appear to satisfy Wikipedia's verifiability policy, from which I quote:

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight."

There is no editorial oversight in a forum posting.

"Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

• it does not involve claims about third parties;"

Since these edits (and the questionable source cited) details claims about the behaviour of third parties, it fails to satisfy the verifiability policy.

If a source from a mainstream publication with editorial oversight (e.g. a gaming magazine) can be cited for this, then the information may be able to be added back. Until then, it should not be. - Mark 07:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:Material added by 80.86.98.234

I see your point and you are right. Although the case is real, and the abuse is obvious, I can't prove anything, because it's my word against theirs. This material intended to show that sometimes the decisions of the GMs are not the correct ones, and that the Senior GMs are also impassible to the appeals. I wanted to show that the abuses are tolerated, and despite my statement no changes were made regarding this decision. I'm very disappointed, and I'm sorry I "invested" two years of my life in a game I thought it was a fair-play promoter. Sorry for the trouble! You have nothing to do with this...

Save God it was only a game... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.86.98.234 (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV... 5.3 Scandal.

Significant data missed:

1st, (unofficial) voting on National Coaches forum. Coaches voted for changes. 2nd, change of rules as rollback for age reform. Any eligible (for this world cup) player before age reform become eligible after change of rules. 3rd, mad night. September, 14.

HT: Preferansist, coach of U-20 Russia. 195.131.163.29 14:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Economy section

Does anyone else think the Economy section of the Problems sections is too opinionated... not to mention unreasonably negative? It comes across as being written by a particular use with a major objection to the game, while the points about difficulties retaining players are verifiably false, given the many long-time users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zealotus (talk • contribs) 14:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion reason

Trophy Manager was speedy deleted, and hattrick is basically similar in terms of notability, so I speedied it. Smartyllama (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Trophy Manager is played by less than tenth of the number of people that play Hattrick. I think that anything that's as big as a small state should be kept. I don't mind adding references to the article, as there must be some. I've seen even couple of TV-programs that interviewed Hattrick users. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 07:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Add this as independient coverage of the game. Use it to source some claims instead of sourcing everything from hattrick.org --Enric Naval (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

'Problems within the game' section

This section is entirely unsourced, and much of it, especially the economy subsection, is quite PoV. Anything that can be done to improve it or source some of it? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree though I am unsure what to do about it aside from deleting the passage. Unmasked (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

The entire article is pompous, biased, and oversized - with many redundant sections. That's my opinion. I have labeled it for Neutrality Check because there's a big question about the article's neutralit point of view. It's an advertisement. Cafa80 (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Cafa80

• I disagree, and since you don't cite any specific examples, I fail to see where you're coming from. If you disagree with the overall tone of the article, be bold and change it. If you think it's a fundamental problem with the article, cite some specifics. The article has a sizable "Problems within the Game" section, so it's not really an advertisement for the game. It's pompous? Okay, that's your opinion, but you fail to give any specific examples of pomp. The same goes for bias. And the size of the article has nothing to do with Neutrality... an NPOV dispute is designed to resolve the language of the article, not the size. Either get into specifics or this dispute holds no value. -DMurphy (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• The 'interesting' part is how for over a decade Hattrick's Wikipedia page is protected from deletion, but if a user wants to create a page on their competitor Trophy Manager, that page is immediately deleted. So much for Wikipedia's neutrality. This page needs to be deleted, period. It doesn't meet any criteria required to keep it.

8/12/08 Copy-edit

I finally had some extra time and found myself in the mood to do so today, so I contributed a fairly intensive copy-edit. Hopefully it will help to resolve some of these advertisement and NPOV claims.

A few notes on the edit:

• Removed the "Registration" section, as it is very non-essential information.
• Greatly reduced the oversized "History" section to only development-related information and bare-bones feature additions.
• Removed lots of original research/analysis, particularly in the Geographic Distribution section.
• Reduced the size of some of the charts to include only essential data.
• Re-arranged things to match other Wiki articles.
• I only edited through "International Play." I will try to get to the rest at a later date.

Before adding any content back, please consider that I have done this edit for the ultimate benefit of the article, since as it stood, it was heading straight for deletion. Our biggest problem is still references - I have been saying this for two years now! -DMurphy (talk) 05:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Further Improvements

Here are some ideas on where to improve this article in the future:

• "In-game Problems" needs a full copy-edit to reduce its size and increase its readability for the average reader.
• The "Administrators" section should be combined into one paragraph, instead of one for each type of administrator.
• The "Outside" section needs a more descriptive title, and needs to be cleaned up. Some sections might need to be combined/removed.
• The references need to be wikified, as per WP:CITE.
• A new history section with a paragraph or two of info pertaining to the release history of the game could be nice.
• Above all, look for third-party sources.

I am no longer an active user of Hattrick, so my expertise in this article is limited. However, I would still like to see this article succeed. -DMurphy (talk) 10:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)