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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
A few of those articles are also written like advertisements. The Farmville article is the best of the lot, you should focus on that as a model. It gives out straight information about without fluffing up the language to make it sound extra special. In this article, phrases such as "bringing a new dimension to online communication and casual and social gaming" are examples of promotional language that say pretty little about the subject from an encyclopedic standpoint. The goal here is to show how this game has made an impact on the world, not just to go over the gameplay from start to finish. You should tone this aspect down and perhaps create sections on the game's reception in the real world. ThemFromSpace15:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The other articles mentioned above don't push the money angle as much as this one. It's a while since these comments were made so hopefully the project will have gone bust. The first comment on this talk page wasn't even signed, which may tell us something. Also by now all the prices mentioned should be well out of date. Why mention prices if it's supposed to be free? Wikipedia is not an advertising hoarding, which is what the authors of this article seem to think it is. Does anybody know whether this company still exists? If it doesn't then the article should be deleted. These companies are springing up all the time; if they're allowed to create a Wiki article just to promote themselves then Wiki will become a dumping ground for tat. Jodosma (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
MadKidOnRage (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)MAdKidOnRage
The page should be delete from wikipedia or remade from the start. The page does give more information about the company and not the game itself the page is meant to be about. I have removed old and not working fonts that have been deleted or labelled as suspicions content. The informations given about this browser game are really poor and the page is more an advertising toward the company that has created the game.[reply]
Agreed. The page is about a now-obsolete flash game that seems to have absolutely no original features, made by a company without an article. I propose a review of whether this is notable, followed by a full rewrite if it is and deletion if it isn't. 'Ridge(Conversation|Fascination|Imagination)14:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
