Talk:Gameplanet

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Omocat (4 participants)
Fortnite Chapter 5 Season 2: Myths and Mortals (7 participants)
SpongeBob SquarePants (disambiguation) (8 participants)
Stick Soldiers (1 participant)
Ganbare Goemon Kirakira Dōchū: Boku ga Dancer ni Natta Wake (6 participants)
Rick Jay Glen (4 participants; relisted)
Kelly Metzger (9 participants; relisted)
Do You Like Horny Bunnies? (15 participants; relisted)
Atlus USA (14 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Untitled[edit]

This page is currently under construction by a wide range of members from gameplanet itself, so it may be disjointed or unfinished for a period of time - Lemonus

Removal of "Members of notable mention"[edit]

Regarding this rationale for inclusion of the section; the comparison between Gameplanet and SA is not valid for two reasons: (1) The individuals mentioned in the "Personalities" section of SA are all writers/major contributors. While there are some other forum members who are notable within SA, the article does not list them because they are not notable as far as Wikipedia is concerned. (2) SA has a substantially higher profile than Gameplanet. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 00:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly i dont care. Where are they shown in mainstream media LIKE YOU ASKED US TO DO. The notable members from ours are exactly that, i see no discernable difference between the two. In context, gpforums is the largest in nz, it is a nz forum, comparing something awful which is an international forum, and is one of the largest internationally. see the similarities?. Something Awful's wiki is EXACTLY the same as our notable members. So, if you delete ours, you are oblidged to delete theirs. Or a complaint will be laid with the admin board. Simple. You cant discriminate gpforums if you dont delete a similar page on the same grounds. --Subwaynz 07:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subway, I don't think Wikipedia has an admin board, and I don't think they care if they do. Stop messing up Lemon's attempt at writing an article, kthnx bye. --Cynos

I think you'll find that i have written a large aspect of this article thankyou cynos. Not the whole lot, but a large aspect. Wikipedia does have an admin board, and they deal with any issues that are put to it. --Subwaynz 04:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until a citation is provided that links the "Malloy" user to this forum and shows that he actually matters, I'm going to keep removing it. --- RockMFR 19:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.gpforums.co.nz/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=13700 Now leave it alone! Subwaynz 23:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC[edit]

Thanks to some editors blind reverting a large number of changes, I am filing an RFC on this article. Besides the improper capitalizations in headings and elsewhere I fixed and which were also reverted, I have problems with other aspects of this article:

The forums section does not seem overall noteworthy, as lots of sites have forums, and the details are insignificant.
The forums crash section is wildly insignificant. Nobody wants to know or cares to know this level of detail. So the site was down. How is that encyclopedic?
The External links section for some reason insists on having four separate links to the site, both the main page and subsection, when anyone going to the site could just follow the links there to the separate areas.

I had left those sections that were merely of questionable significance... and, frankly, I think it could be cut even more than what I had. But it looks like some fans of the site (owners?) think they WP:OWN the article. DreamGuy 20:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your input where it is clearly not needed. No I am not the owner of the site, merely a user. Gameplanet is one of the largest online entertainment retailers in NZ, and Gameplanet Forums also being arguably the largest and most active forum in New Zealand, infact we are the 455th largest forum in the world. Hence why, having 46,000 members and nearly 3 million posts, and regularly referenced in mainstream media in New Zealand, an explanation as to why the message board lost over 2 years of data (something awfuls data centre crisis during hurricane katrina) it is relevant in context.

Thankyou for your input again, but unless you can quote wiki policy that would prevent the disputed information being posted then it would be helpful if you harrassed another wiki.--130.216.191.182 01:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that Gameplanet *is* a significant forum, but I don't see why the GamePlanet page lists such details when a great many other web-site related articles don't have similar information. Besides, can't the forums give this information themselves? Is it relevant in context? The article needs only give a brief summary of the forums and their general features. Exceptionally detailed technicals reports might not be altogether appropriate. But there are probably good counter-arguments, and these are more proposed ideas than any sort of assertions. Bosola 21:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 April 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplanet (New Zealand) → Gameplanet – The target is a disambiguation page which only directs to two articles: a non-existent (deleted) one, and this. The disambiguation is unnecessary, since this is technically the only article about the topic "Gameplanet" on Wikipedia. Also, the website has expanded, and now has an Australian version, so the current title isn't entirely accurate. – Rhain ☔ 07:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. SSTflyer 11:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: logical move. No other Gameplanet page. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gamesplanet[edit]

Google took me to this article when searching for info on that website. Has anyone got info about it?

French Wikipedia has had an article up about it since 2012 at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamesplanet

Just not sure how trustworthy/suspicious it compared to more well-known stuff like fandom's Fanatical or Humble Bundle or direct Steam purchases. HearthHOTS (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]