Talk:Social interaction in MMORPGs

Article cleanup There's a couple of things that this article needs in order to clean it up and make it more suitable for Wikipedia. The first is modifying the referencing you have. You can find more information on how to do inline citations (those little numbers in the middle of articles) at

here

and enclose it between two ref tags. For example,

<ref>{{cite web |author=Greg Kasavin |title=Real Life: The Full Review |url=http://uk.gamespot.com/gamespot/features/all/gamespotting/071103minusworld/1.html |date=2007-11-03 |accessdate=2008-05-13 |publisher=[[GameSpot]]}}</ref>

becomes ^[1]. Neat, eh?. That reflist tag at the bottom of the article then displays all your cites in a nice little list, in a similar way to other articles.

Next up,

reliable sources. Take a look at this, as information from blogs and similar is not usually considered a reliable source. If you have any doubt as to a source, please ask for help. We'll do our best to provide advice. I'd suggest cracking on with these two first, then looking at adding further cleanup. It does read like an essay, instead of an article, but we'll get there. Hope this helps, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 22:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

References

1. ^ Greg Kasavin (2007-11-03). "Real Life: The Full Review". GameSpot. Retrieved 2008-05-13.

Anyone?

So not much has happened here since the delete discussion, and this article is still for the most part an identical copy of this cornell wiki article titled Sleepless in the World of Warcraft. Is anyone actively working on this or should there be another delete discussion concerning it? I like the topic principle, but it would need to be seriously edited down from an academic review to an encyclopedic summary, in my opinion, if it's going to stay here. - Owlmonkey (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the sucky side of an unmanaged voluntary project, all right. I expect that several people are interested but think that they wouldn't be able to do any good, while others have trouble finding enough free space in their editing habits or getting thems in order, yours truly being a prime example of that last category.
On the positive but infuriating side, an article like this can lie stagnant for a long time before the right people come along, so the situation doesn't say much about future prospects. Biological issues in Jurassic Park was in desperate need of help for a year and a half before I did what I could, brought in an expert, it got the attention of the project as it grew... as it stands now the article still has a ways to go (how could it not have?) but it's a couple orders of magnitude better and better sourced than it was. (The point of having such an article is not an issue here, so suffice it to say that Jurassic Park is ridiculously important in depictions of dinosaurs and doubled the number of found Tyrannousaurus skeletons.) Since the article's not harming anything by not doing much of the good it could do, I recommend taking the third option: trying to recruit, or coming back in spring 2010 to see if anything's improved. By then the delay would be long enough to be considered proof of abscence.

Sorry that I couldn't be of more help, Kizor 20:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is terrible.

Yep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.18.33 (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio

this article had loads of refs and sources and could be a great article, but a lot of it was a copyvio. There's a subpage for helping to make a new copy of the article here Talk:Social_interaction_in_MMORPGs/Temp Sticky Parkin 21:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the sources to a subpage on my account

$user log ^(Talk) @ 21:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]