Talk:Habbo/Archive 4

Habbo Hotel
Habbo Hotel
	;
Developer(s)	Sulake Corporation
Publisher(s)	Sulake Corporation
Platform(s)	Cross-platform
Release	2000; January 2001; September 2004
Genre(s)	Massively multiplayer online game
Mode(s)	Multiplayer

This is an archive of past discussions about Habbo. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Habbo raid discussion

Both Sides

Of course, the individuals advocating "closing the pool" are doing nothing to help their cause by ruining the potential of a legitimate point by adding in something about "nigras" or AIDs. From a neutral point of view, I have also come to find that the mod patrolling this entry has some faults he or she needs to face, however. In an encyclopedia, especially an encyclopedia that prides itself in providing more in-depth entries than the Britannica, to fumble over the who's or the why's goes against all of what Wikipedia is supposed to stand for. Be honest with yourself. You're hiding behind the rules and regulations that are really more like guidelines because you and I both know they are not enforced in other entries to the degree that you're exhibiting here. Of course, it's undeniable other entries have not seen as much controversy over the years as this one has; I'm sure the moderators had their hands full before finally locking the entry. However, there are certain things one should ask his or herself before determining if an addition is significant or not.

1) Is the addition common knowledge? Remember, not everything necessarily has to be cited if it is common knowledge; for example, McDonald's is a fast food restaurant. However, the fact that McDonald's is a fast food restaurant can additionally be verified by visiting their website, correct?

In this particular case, it has been made quite painstakingly clear that the event in question indeed happened. Amongst Habbo users, it is in fact common knowledge. While there are no credible sources to cite, you can in fact visit the website at literally any time of the day, visit the pool area, and can see a black character with a trademark gray suit and afro dancing in front of the pool ladder, despite, or rather in spite of other users demanding him to move. This fact can be verified, not in text, but in a graphical display at the very website this entry is devoted. (http://www.habbo.com)

2) Did the addition bear a significant impact? For example, if individuals today are still feeling the effects of an event, then the addition in question had an impact of some sort.

Creating a black character with a gray suit and an afro hairstyle is grounds for being instantly, permanently banned at Habbo. The fact that to this day no individual can easily get into the pool without waiting also bears significance.

Also, it bears notable mention that when comparing the graphs of the daily reach of 4chan.org and habbo.com, which may be accessed at Alexa's Traffic Rankings (http://alexa.com), there are most definitely some interesting occurrences evident to anybody that actually knows what they're looking at. Throughout early 2006, Habbo had been experiencing a severe decline in users, spiraling down to almost 0.0%. During the second quarter of 2006, however, there's a HUGE incline in users of Habbo that nearly parallels a less severe but still significant jump in users of 4chan. After this jump, Habbo experienced more users than ever before, peaking in just short of mid-July of 2006, when the event in question occurred, 12 July 2006. In fact, during the month of July, the graph of Habbo's daily reach and 4chan's daily reach overlap perfectly for a short period. (http://img252.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screencapva6.png) Those of us that are educated about natural growths and the like in regards to the internet should be aware that such a growth in Habbo's users overnight is not only unnatural, but also highly unlikely without outside interference. What was that outside interference? That's where Wikipedia should come in, to provide an unbiased account and explanation.

I do not believe the article should be unlocked and allowed to be edited by just anyone for obvious security reasons. However, the event should at the very least get a blurb. For example, "Following the summer of 2006, Habbo users may have experienced rapid changes in regards to methods of keeping the community a safe place for all users following a series of attacks from outsiders." There should be simply an acknowledgment. This is in no way encouraging or supporting the attacks, nor is it giving into the abusers; it is simply an acknowledgment that the event in fact occurred. Let's face facts. When it comes to events that occur over the internet, where Photoshopped images and individuals hiding behind proxies run rampant, it's hard to prove. In fact, Wikipedia's handling of virtually every other article involving the internet acknowledges this fact. Reference the entry devoted to internet phenomena if you must. You may not like the people involved; you may even despise the people involved and all they believe they stand for; however, this should in no way affect what goes and what does not in regards to this article. 67.165.103.29 13:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Great argument. Can't believe I edited for "personal attack on character" LOL. Subjective much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.242.58 (talk • contribs)

Your personal attack was removed per policy. Note the talk page header: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Habbo Hotel article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I was agreeing with his argument, which is coincidentally related to improving this article. I was NOT talking about Habbo Hotel in general. I'm not surprised it was censored though. Oh yeah, the raids SHOULD be mentioned. It doesn't take a genius to realize some moderators here just don't want the "trolls" to win out.

Agreed. The raids should be added. Even just a simple line such as "Lately, users have been causing trouble within the community by blocking the entrances to the pools." or something can be enough. And, contrary to your belief, Seicer, this is not letting the trolls win. Granted, the only sources that can be found are not notable, but we can always provide screenshots for that. I, myself am guilty of raiding, and I can tell you with absolute certainty, that this happens daily. I can't see though why stating a fact, no matter how wrong it may be. It's like saying one shouldn't cite the holocaust because that makes the Nazis win. It happened. That means we should cite it. Same goes for the raids. It happened. It still happens. And it will happen again. Therefore, we should make a mention of it happening. Zero R 09:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we not simply state that 'some would argue' the raids have had an effect on the operation of the Hotel by forcing the pool to become HabboClub only for a period, among other things?Gokustyle667 09:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Habbo raid

Did it actually happen, yes or no? If so, how were 10, 000 + people able to pull it off? -G

Yes. Via 4chan's large community (and a few from others). No officially published documentation however. --Dch111 18:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Not only 4 chan but other chans (Ex 7, 12) and also many other communitys such as Ytmnd. Tokyo Michael 17:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes they happened, I have been a witness for the last three or four. If anyone wants proof that they happened, later tonight (around 4 o'clock) I can provide screencaps of the raids as well as links the various websites used as staging points for the raids. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danis1911 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

As far as I know the only way to raid someone is saying something like \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ over and over. But if anyone has any screenshots about that please tell me because it is impossible for someone other than the owner to pick up the furni in the room. I am coming to you from the Australian Hotel.--Destructo 087 04:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Pool's Closed

...WHY doesn't this include information on the 4chan raid?...That's kind of...ignorant...65.27.211.52 21:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

SEE prior discussions *sigh*. Perhaps we should put up a big huge notice on the top of the talk page about why it's not included. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Whenever I got into the poolsphere deck no matter when, 'nigras' try to close it. It's a constant thing. SakotGrimshine 13:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's sad that ED has better information about the real activities of the site than wikipedia does, this being left out makes this article a joke. Call it unimportant all you want, but it's what really happens on habbo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.179.200.83 (talk • contribs).

And ED is not a reliable source nor is it credible. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes ED made it all up. — MichaelLinnear 23:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

ED is not 4chan. 211.26.186.11 05:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The infamous raids, once again.

OK, here we go... I was *THERE* for the raids (as a passive observer). Not only that, the screenshots, videos, etc., pretty much undeniably prove that the raids *did occur*. But *THIS IS NOT WHAT IS AT ISSUE*. The problem is the notability of the raids, within the context of Habbo Hotel.

Now, first off, ask any Habbo user, and most will know about the raids. They're definitely felt as notable by the Habbo community. The issue, then, is neither verification of their existence, nor their notability to the community, but verification of their notability. And this is where things become difficult - We could conduct polling of Habbo users to see who is aware, but that would be WP:OR. And outside of sites like ED (Which I very much respect as an excellent compendium of lulz, but which doesn't even try to be an academic reference), and sites related to the communities taking part in the raid, there's not a whole lot out there that we can look to to verify the notability of these incidents.

When it makes WIRED, then I say go ahead and add it. Jumbo Snails 07:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree, if publication in WIRED is our criteria for technology-related articles I think quite a few currently up would not exist; both the accusations of racism and the subsequent raids carried out by a slew of groups are noteworthy and have plagued Habbo's existence, I am absolutely certain the average Habbo user is aware of them. Refusing to include them is nothing short of passive racism~. --87.194.98.220 22:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I think the mere fact that one raid has occured and another is occuring. It seems very tilting to not even mention the raids like they have been for Hal Turner. Yanksox 21:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I support this even though it is not directly relevant to my interests (haven't used Habbo in years). Possible screenshot for inclusion. Pomte 00:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

See the many archived discussions on this. Dead topic, move on. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No matter how many times it's been discussed, it's still best to include. It's become such a frequent part of the community that everyone who uses the site is familiar with it by now. The raiders even took the site down completely before.BuyAMountain 22:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Except that Seicer will see to it that the information will never be included because of his bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.97.242.58 (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

I also want to add that it's amusing how "criticisms and controversy" section exist on many pages about websites, video games, television shows, etc. and they are allowed even though there is no verifiable and credible proof that there is criticism/controversy over the product. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.97.242.58 (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

If information about the raid is included, there will be no need for vandalism, will there, Seicer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.208.92 (talk • contribs)

Or the page can be protected and the vandalism stops. There is no reason why Wikipedia must cave in to trolls. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wanting facts to be represented isnt trolling. Facts, I remind you. Things that happened. This opinion is as valid as the President of Iran refusing to cave to the "trolls" that insist that the Holocaust did in fact happened. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.244.216.6 (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

I think it's already pretty clear that Seicer just doesn't want this posted because he thinks that it means that he will be giving in to "trolling" and the instigators of the raid. Perhaps he has bias against the raiders because of this experiences with them or whatnot. Community-wide acknowledgement, moderator acknowledgement, screenshots, videos of the raids are not reliable evidence (although the same evidence is used in many other wikipedia articles without trouble). The only way this will get on Wiki is if it appears in a scientific journal. Even then, I think Seicer would come up with an excuse. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.97.242.58 (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Its apparent that a few anonymous editors wish not to participate in Wikipedia process by inserting in valid references and citations that conform to policies and guidelines. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

(restarting block) Facts? How do you cite an 'encylopedia' of irrelevant or humorous information? You can't. As previously stated, there are no reliable sources and there will not be one due to the nature of the trolling. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting to note that nobody has suggested that we site Encyclopedia Dramatica. I can provide numerous screencaps as well as links to websites used as staging points for the raids. For example: http://www.poolsclosed.com/ http://txt.7chan.org/i/#8 (That last one may not stay current for long) but I can also upload screencaps if you request them. Also I would like to note that I personally do not endorse trolling this page or editing it without approval, and that is why I am going to the trouble to support my side of the argument in the best way I can. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danis1911 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Citing Encyclopedia Dramatica? That has to be a joke. I don't hate ED or anything, I quite like a lot of their stuff. But come on, there are much better sources than ED. Also, i'm pretty sure there are some arguments about citing ED in the archives. Lannah 07:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The Habbo Raids need to be included

look, the seriousness of the topic of the raids isnt what matters, its factual accuracy. And if there is no mention of an event, then that is just as bad as inaccuracy. The Nigra Martyrs need representation by wikipedia. Wikipedia should not be allowed to ignore history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danis1911 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

I've got to agree here, even if the raids are the effect of a bunch of trolls, they are significant within the Habbo community, and many people have found out about Habbo Hotel simply because of the raids. I'm an example of one of those people. Xizer 02:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

See the many archived discussions on this. Dead topic, move on. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not dead, it's the most action this non-notable community site ever got. Supporting the inclusion of the pool invasion! --84.137.57.157 05:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

In the future, when a user vandalises, place appropriate warning templates on their page. If this continues, I'll request page protection (again). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

24.184.26.27 has been blocked for two days for vandalising the page. Note that these type of edits are not tolerated and will be reported to WP:AIV with hesitation. Sock puppets are not welcome either. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont see how this can be considered a dead topic. The raids are important and are still happening regularly. Saying it is a "dead topic" could be compared to saying Darfur is a dead topic: talking about something and then not having any action does not make the subject any less relevant; this is an invalid argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.208.92 (talk • contribs)

Trolls and vandals continue to beat this topic with a dead horse. The continuing vandalism of this page only goes on to show that it should not be included. The topics have been covered many times in the past. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

...and yet there is no mention of the habbo raids. why is this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.175.208.92 (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Read through the earlier discussions and maybe you'll know. james ^(talk) 09:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I didntt mean that the reasons aren't there, I meant that they are not valid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.244.216.6 (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

You are more than willing to participate in the discussion, but simply beating a dead horse and stating that our reasoning was not valid isn't very helpful. The reasoning goes along these main lines: Non-notable in the sense that it isn't a highly important event for an encyclopedia; it isn't citable with reliable sources; and it is an event staged by trolls from a web-site. I can't agree on how it would benefit the article or any of its readers, outside of the vandals who persist on adding it in, or some relation to AIDS or any other ethnic group. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

How about we add it to the 4chan or Something Awful articles? It's notable for them without doubt; it shows they were able to organise into a force that caused a website to crash. Moreover, the Ebaum controversy is included and it is in a way similar to these raids. --80.47.15.122 19:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit: I've thought of several sources:

I'd say the sheer volume of material out there is more or less proof. Sure, Forums aren't that reliable, but all this stuff has to prove it one way or another? Perhaps Wikipedia could organise a petition of people who can say who was there. Plus, you could possibly check banned accounts at the time an see they're all black with afros. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.47.15.122 (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC). Okay, now that the pool has been closed to all but paying members, can this be deemed notable? Lulzatron 05:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Habbo racist crews

Several crews, consisting of over 100 people, on habbo.co.uk have emerged and were involved in forcing black habbos to leave the pools in response to the July 12th 'raid' they terrorised habbo for a few weeks until their head Himmler2 received a permanent ban for a T&C violation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.20.2.133 (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

See article Nigredo Hotel. --SakotGrimshine 13:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Non-notable event and one that is totally encyclopedic. I can't even fathom how this is citable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Article

I agree with the editor in the above section. This article seems to be grossly bloated with Habbocruft that is not supported by the sources. It should definitely be cut down drastically. — MichaelLinnear 23:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Exchange rate

Does anybody know the exchange rate for Habbo coins and real money?

I think it's $0.25 per credit in Australia. Also, this discussion is about the article itself, and not the Hotel.. Spebi^[c] 04:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

well it would be nice if more info was posted about it in the article

Going to Habbo myself I know the exchange rate, which is $0.20 per credit (5 Credits per dollar).

WOW that's cheap. 82.27.250.184 09:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think user Atom27 deserves an article of his own, he's the wealthiest habbo user in the world, apart from the hotel managers who don't have to buy furni out of their own pocket anyway. 82.27.250.184 09:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Atom27 is not notable. This is irrelevant but, the managers of the Hotel do have to pay for most of their stuff, the only stuff that they don't pay for is the furni that is used in prizes, etc. --Spe bi 10:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? Most Moderators seem (on Habbo UK, I don't know about other hotels) to have room after room, filled with thrones, dino eggs and other rares, I did hear (although not from a 100% confirmed source) that they have a large budget of furni on which to furnish their rooms (like lots of other companies give away an allowance of their products free to their employees). 18:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently they have a section in the catalog where you can buy the rares for 1 credit. I remember something like that accidently being released to the public for about half an hour or so. Anyway, I agree with Spebi on the whole Atom27 issue. Lannah 00:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Logo vs. Screen Capture

My two cents: having never heard of Habbo before I reverted some vandalism, I find the screen shot (crappy though it may be to some) far more useful and informative than the logo. -- Richard D. LeCour ^{(talk/contribs)} 19:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

-I concur; I saw the activity on this article in Recent Changes and figured that I would check it out. I saw both images, the logo first and then the screenshot. The logo looked like something from an old Atari game: low tech, pixelated, etc. Granted, the screenshot is the same way, but a person can immediately tell what "Habbo" is at the first glance of the article. As the image that was loaded is small and is a fair representation of the game, I personally believe that the screenshot is an acceptable image for the infobox. Mec modifier 04:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree - the screen shot grabs the reader more. I first came upon this article reverting vandalism (unrelated - weeks ago), and I saw the screen shot and immediately understood what habbo's were. The logo may belong elsewhere in the article, but not as the very first image. Natalie 04:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everything Natalie says. The logo belongs in the article, but not in the infobox (which implies giving information - the screenshot is much more informative than the logo), and not when the logo image has jpeg compression artifacts, a weird crop and a black background. james ^(talk) 05:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Who gives a shit? My image is the logo. Toajaller3146 04:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I don't think you're going to win converts with this level of discourse. Natalie 04:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously both images are important, so how about showing both images in the infobox? The Habbo logo is quite distinctive and recognizable, and usually it is the logo that appears in infoboxes, with screenshots and other images throughout the article, but we do need a better quality logo. How about a screenshot that includes the logo (the intro screen)? Pomte 15:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll concur that the image of the game itself is more informative than a horribly-designed logo that may infringe on trademark issues. The logo also does not portray a fair representation of the game itself, and the comments left by Toajaller3146 can be construed as owning the article. Edit warring is also not an option. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Showing both sounds good to me, but does the infobox allow for it? Also found [1] which would appear to be a better quality version of the logo. james ^(talk) 23:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

See right. james ^(talk) 23:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That looks pretty darn good, and is a good compromise for all concerned in my opinion. Mec modifier ^{(talk/contribs)} 00:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

And done. james ^(talk) 00:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone just changed the picture again. Sigh. Lannah 03:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Target Audience for Habbo Hotel

Just an observation, but after visiting the USA Habbo website, I saw that the game is geared more for teens; the Habbo site mentioned this in no less than 3 places that I saw in my quick read-through. This article only makes one mention of teens, in the Sponsor section. I suggest adding a blurb to the introduction, such as:

Habbo Hotel is a virtual community for teenagers owned and operated by Sulake Corporation that combines the two concepts of a chat room and an online game.

I figure that the two words for teenagers is a small enough edit that it gets the point across without bogging down the intro or article, and lets "old folks" like me know it's not really suited for them. Mec modifier 05:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added it. Spebi^[c] 05:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

In-Game Games

Please, no more adding games to the Guest Room games section! That section is ment to be kept BRIEF. This article does not need every small detail about the Hotel. Spebi^[c] 21:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Unneccesary Stuff

This page really needs to be protected. These useless and pointless edits DO NOT need to be included in the article. It has been happening so much lately and needs to be stopped.

Wikipedia readers DO NOT need to know all the possible commands for a virtual pet. Wikipedia readers DO NOT need to know all the possible player-made games.

Help this article by suggesting more things that don't need extra explanation for this article. I for one, am sick of this nonsense going on. --Spebi^[talk] 09:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a small section should be added about retro servers. 24.192.84.63 19:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Habbo Home Image

Habbo Home image added. --Losars 10:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

And removed. It's a poor example at best, and the external link reeks of subtle spam. james ^(talk) 11:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the image with a screenshot of a default layout, it seems to better fit the definition of "typical" and avoids the risk of disparaging/inappropriate remarks. james ^(talk) 04:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The image should show all of the features of Habbo Home and how creatively users can design them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaeye (talk • contribs) 06:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC). --kai ^{{talk/contributions}} 06:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You "disagree" that the default fits the definition of typical better than a random page, and that there are no disparaging/inappropriate remarks on the default page whereas there are on your version of the image? Can you explain? james ^(talk) 06:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I figure that an image of a Habbo Home page under the "features" headline should actually show all of the features of a Habbo Home page and that it should be used-customised to display the possibilities of the Habbo Home offers. --kai ^{{talk/contributions}} 06:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

But most of the features in the your version are very hard to identify to anyone who doesn't already know what to look for. You also didn't answer my other point... james ^(talk) 07:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Find me an established Habbo Home page (one which you have the owner's permission to use) which does not break any of Wikipedia's guidelines and expresses all of Habbo Home's features and a large variety of stickers. I fail to see what's so inappropriate about the image when you compare it to other examples of Habbo Homes and as stated in the Moderation and Management section of the article, Habbo Homes are protected from such content and would of been removed if they were of that nature.--kai ^{{talk/contributions}} 08:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's think logical here, maybe "Moderation and Management" didn't get around to the Habbo Home. I'm a user of Habbo, I know it's inappropriate - you know it's inappropriate. It's not exactly setting a best example. Blaaake 08:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well seeing as your a user of Habbo Hotel, you would know that the "bobba" filter is applied to all Habbo Homes and even player's have the option to report such inappropriate content. If you have such a problem with it, I advise you to do so and then we can take a new screenshot, that is, if this "inappropriate content" is actually removed. --kai ^{{talk/contributions}} 08:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The content is sexually referenced, it doesn't include curse words, but it's quite clear that it is of sexual nature. If you can't stand not having a Habbo Home example image there, how about you be mature and take a screenshot of one of the THOUSANDS of "established" Habbo Homes that doesn't have inappropriate content.

Here's a few ESTABLISHED AND APPROPRIATE Habbo Homes for you:

Blaaake 08:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't classify a employee of Sulake's Habbo Home as being great Encyclopedic content, and as for those other pages, I doubt that any of the home page owners want their face all over the internet. I had PERMISSION to use that screenshot and I figured it met Wikipedia's standards, I did everything I correctly and I see no real reason to see why it had to be reverted, unless of course this has something to with your relationship with the Habbo featuring in the Home page. --kai ^{{talk/contributions}} 09:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Permission in this case is irrelevant - the page authors don't own the pages, Sulake does, and we use their images under fair use. I'm open to other people's opinions on the image. james ^(talk) 09:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Scientologist Jab on Image

Um, just out of morbid curiosity, who edited the screenshot image in the infobox? I distinctly remember that there were only 3 speech bubbles, none of which mentioned Scientology. (Please Note: I do not have anything against Scientology, the Bridge, or LRH, nor am I currently or previously an SP) Someone has been tweaking with the image and added a disparaging remark about the religion, and could potentially start a ruckus. And I'm too lazy to search through all the recents edits to find out who did it. Mec modifier ^{(talk/contribs)} 02:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It was User:Losars who added the commentary about scientology (see image history). I've reverted the image and left a {{uw-image1}} notice on his talk page. --Muchness 02:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reason to believe that Scientologist is actually a Habbo Hotel user. --Sp e bi ^[talk] 02:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The username in the image; Scientologist: has nothing to do with the comment following it. Scientologist: is actually the Habbo's username. --Kaeye 03:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

and reverted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaeye (talk • contribs) 03:04, 4 March 2007.

It's preferable to use the original version of the image since a) as Mec modifier noted, the version with Scientologist's comments added may be construed as disparaging (even if that wasn't the intention), and b) the edited version doesn't add anything of encyclopedic value to the original image. --Muchness 03:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Lets just forget the whole thing. --kai ^{{talk/contributions}} 03:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you been hacked on Habbo?

If you've ever been hacked on Habbo Hotel I have the userbox for you. Click here if you want it.

You can't be "hacked" on the Hotel.. it's called "keylogging" and "having an easy password that is easy to guess what it is". But this discussion page is about the article, not about the Hotel. Spebi 05:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Technically, yes you can, but 95% of the programs out there are keyloggers or Client-Sided hacks.. --Mychilli 15:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Old Management Positions

Recently, I added two old positions to the Moderation and management section. The edit was reverted due to no citations and "largely just rumours and theories and too much detail". I am willing to rewrite the content I submitted, including sources. But, I dont want to go through the trouble of rewriting it all if it wont benefit the article (I dont want to bloat it with useless information).

So, would it be acceptible to you guys to add information about two positions that no longer exist in Habbo Hotel, or would it be considered useless info? Blakeo x 18:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If you mean the gold and silver hobbas, those positions should really have a sentence or two because they were a big part of habbo. Lannah 03:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The Jud and FatHarry part....

Needs to be deleted. There is just no need for it to be there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.214.114.124 (talk) 05:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Current Hotels

Some of the hotels that are on the list are actually not hotels at all. For example, Mexico and New Zealand are considered hotels, but they just redirect to the Spanish and Australian hotels. Shouldn't we just take them out? -Lannah 07:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The source cited in that section says they are hotels, so that's what we say. james ^(talk) 09:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Habbo Contacts Should Be Transparent

I believe it is entirely unacceptable that a commercial operation, like Habbo ...engaged in financial transactions with clients... would be able to mask the business entity from the client, by dealing only through emails and, most often, by using aliases rather than real names.

There should be a transparent publication of phone numbers, postal and street address for each of the Habbo business enities in the various countries in which the company trades.

It is currently too easy for an anonymous Habbo representative to make claims against the client, and then cancel all the goods purchased.

This kind of behaviour is not deemed acceptable in day to day business transactions and should not be acceptable with online enitities, without having contact between real people in an independent 'court of appeal'.

The process of reviewing ones own behaviour internally is unacceptable in the real world.

Habbo's practice should be reviewed in much the same way that many other internet scams have come under scrutiny. AussieLabrat 06:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is not about the discussion of Habbo Hotel itself, it is about discussing the article, how it can be improved, etc. --spe bi 06:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This is exhbiting the ignorance of some wikipedians, this man's trying to convey that it's a problem, and that compared to other companies Sulake aren't fitting the general requirements. Although there is a Contact Us feature, bans in, probably 99% of cases, will not be injust unless there is an injust Moderator (please don't say I've sparked the pool's closed argument again by saying that) or there's a fault with the chat log. Moderators can see what's been said, by whom and when, they are easily accessible to EVERY habbo, Permanent Bans are only instituted as a last resort. It's like, if you buy your food in a cafe and then behave badly, they will throw you out, even though you've paid, and you woudln't be able to claim a refund there. It's in the T&C that they will not tolerate you on HabboHotel if you breach the Habbo Way.

82.9.29.195 13:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

New updates

There's been a big update on the Habbo UK website, including a new addition of habbo groups. Most of the information can be found here, but i'm just wondering which section in the article it should go under. I'm thinking features, but if anyone else thinks it should go somewhere else then feel free to say so. -Lannah 09:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It's release 13 if you're coming from the UK hotel.. It's just a feature of another release. Amstoakes 13:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Picture of typical habbo room..

This is not a typical habbo guest room..

This is a room belonging to a habbo who is extremely rich and to say it's a typical guest room is misleading to newbie players.. This may even have been taken in a staff guest room due to the infobus poster or maybe again, a retro hotel which is illegal..

My main point is that it's not a typical habbo room as all the furniture in the room is not avaliable to new users. Does anybody care to add a screen cap of a room that has normal furni? Amstoakes 13:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This image will make newbie players (or atleast those who haven't been playing for too long) think that other players have vast amounts of valuable furni. This screenie is used in a lot of other websites to show what the 'average' room looks like, as I swear i've seen it before. Considering there's been many more updates since that came out, we should have an image that shows more of the furniture that's recently come out. Lannah 06:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that too. Type anything in the search filter and you'll get a wide number of empty rooms (or rooms with one or two chairs in them).--WaltCip 02:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a regular room! I've been playing for a couple of weeks and I have 2 thrones, my old two accounts were banned, in which I had another 5 or 6 thrones, it's not like buying Buckinham Palace, I thought I was in the poorest 5% of habbos, does this mean my habbo's rich? Everyone I know seems to have like 100 thrones, lol.

Do you know how hard it is to get a Spyro egg in Habbo Hotel? The item is ultra-rare, for all I know.--WaltCip 23:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

86.27.78.208 17:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Those people with no furni in there rooms should be permanently banned, everyone who actually likes habbo and buys credits gets annoyed with them, they're taking up space on the habbo server, creating rooms with nothing in them. You should have to buy at least 100 credits (only £9) before you can enter.

86.27.78.208 17:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This is completely rediculous, and irrelivant to any discussion on here. People have a right to make a room and have nothing in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.146.244 (talk • contribs)

Please stay on topic here, remembering what this page is meant for. –Spe bi 07:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

DJ Decks, black dragons and an infobus poster.. those pieces of furni are not found in a typical habbo room.. DJ Decks are clased as super rare, along with black dragons.. the infobus poster is only found in a couple of rooms and is only owned by a few habbos which leads me to believe that this particular screen shot has been taken on a 'retro' hotel which is illegal and should therefore be removed anyway. Amstoakes 17:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you even aware which Hotel the picture is from? If it IS from the UK hotel, then those furniture pieces are very rare. If the picture right now is not "a typical guest room" then we will use this one (to the right). –Spe bi 06:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the right one. That looks more believable, if not highly creative.--WaltCip 10:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The image on the right is a perfect example of a typical habbo room, with furniture that is actually in the cataloge. Amstoakes 10:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Although it is a bit too pink for my liking, this picture is much better than the previous one we had. And to what the person who didn't sign their post said up there ^, that's utter bullshit. The majority of habbos on the UK hotel don't have many thrones (if any), and we needed an image for a room that looks like what the majority of habbos have. So go figure. Lannah 23:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)