Talk:GameRanger

This article was nominated for deletion on April 3, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on March 19, 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Apple Inc. Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics 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.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Ho, Jennifer. "GameRanger: Open for Business". Inside Mac Games. Archived from the original on August 29, 2000.
Barker, Garry (June 13, 2000). "Online warriors find a site that suits them and their machines". The Age. p. 59 – via Newspapers.com.

Untitled

Hi everyone,

If you are new to Wikipedia welcome.

Wikipedia is an Internet encyclopedia that anyone can edit and is designed to reflect the noteworthy points of human knowledge.

This page was nominated for deletion because certain editors felt it wasn't of sufficient value to the community to warrant an entry in Wikipedia.

It was later defended by a handful of editors on the basis that the software had a significant role in Mac history and won an award from Macworld in 1999. Despite their support many felt the article needed to be rewritten - which it was by me. You can view the nomination here.

The article has since been reverted back and forth between the two versions a number of times.

I would therefore like to explain why I view the current version of the page as being the better version and have often reverted to it:

It contains no long lists. Long lists are generally frowned upon by Wikipedia editors especially in the featured article process.

It contains no external links advertising premium services. Such links are spam and are banned from Wikipedia.

It establishes why the software is notable. Gaming services are generally not sufficiently notable to warrant an inclusion in Wikipedia. GameRanger may be sufficiently notable because of its history. The Wikipedia article should therefore focus on the service's history.

It is written in an encyclopedia-like tone not an advertising-like tone and contains no obscure images.

If you have differing viewpoints please express them here. Otherwise feel free to help make this encyclopedia the best it can be.

Cedars 06:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voice Chat Controversy Deletion

I fail to see how the voice chat controversy was promotional spam. Please, give me your wisdom :D GofG _|^|_| Contribs 15:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were several links to the premium service of GameRanger these constituted spam. Cedars 06:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then we could delete the spam without deleting the entire article. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 23:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth did Gameranger adbandon every Mac OS below 10.2.8? Sorry, don't have a couple thousand dollars to blow on buying a new computer and all new software just to play GR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.66.114 (talk • contribs) at 03:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup - 19 December 2007

I've just done a big cleanup of the existing text. Some subtle vandalism and bashing that had been included has been removed, the included figures have been updated to reflect the current situation, and each paragraph has had at least some rewording for either better clarity or accuracy. If there are any issues with this, please feel free to leave a note on my talk page, and I'll respond when I see it. — digitaleon • talk @ 08:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies section?

I've just reverted to the revisions I did in December 2007, as a later revert was done to undo everything I changed. I have no interest in participating in an edit war, so as a compromise, I feel it might be good to include a controversies section in the article, since it is marked as a Stub and thus open to expansion, and since there have been a number of controversies linked to both the GameRanger software/service and to Scott Kevill. How does this sound? Please discuss! — digitaleon • talk @ 01:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Samedi: Get out of here digitalpeon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.34.130 (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called "controversies section" did not meet wikipedia npov standards and makes unreferenced claims, with only a web archive link of an old criticism. There is no backup for any true "controversy", just some user complaints. --GGG65 (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mac OSX?

Is this application really supposed to be categorized as OSX software? I can't find anything saying that on their website, and I run the application nicely on my Vista computer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.167.238.209 (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proof that gameranger is a hack

I shoudnt say this

but it has to be done http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Imcc8TC1Ue0&feature=related watch it and tell me it is a hack. --Strangeowl1948 (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1)You do not need two header titles. I would remove one, but I don't want to break some rule of Wikipedia. (2) Your description is terrible because I do not understand your message. Is a "hack" bad? or is it good? Are you criticizing gameranger? People are (700 views on Youlube) not going to watch a 5-10 minute video for some feature/bug. You have to specifically say what the hack is and at what time in the video it occurs to show other people. Otherwise, Wikipedia does not accept first person opinion. Your "fact"? has to be a news article from a legitimate source.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]