![]() | This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article contains a translation of Icy Tower from pl.wikipedia. |
I merged from the Free Lunch Design article, which narrowly survived a deletion listing. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 23:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I did some serious clarification, and some formatting. The floyd 15:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Just download and install it. It should not be too hard, it includes an installer. -- ReyBrujo 23:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
it was released way earlier than 2005. I remember playing it 3-4 years ago!-- Sonjaaa 22:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I removed the notability tag, since this issue has already been discussed [1] in relation to this article with the decision being made to keep. -- Zagrebo 15:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
At the moment nowhere because the article is in dire need of citations (as the tag says) as well as major major tidying-up and rewriting since it's currently too full of big long lists and the like. There is plenty of stuff "out there" about it, though, thanks to its popularity. Give it time! By all means editors need prodded on this one but tagging it for deletion is not the same thing. -- Zagrebo 21:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I actually did a spot of research to try and get some cites earlier and found some good stuff including a news story about it being converted to mobile phones (I think by a commercial company). I'll try and get them into the article soon. -- Zagrebo 22:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
This article should really use protection. I find it vadalised, or being tested on, after each visit. And unfortunately some reverts do not even recover all content that was removed by the vandals. Well, at least we could infer, from the quantity of reverted edits, that the game is certainly notable for many people. That was per above sections. :) So, pity that so late, but I think I will file the protection proposal. Don’t you think? viny. tell // 22:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
It is not edit-warring as long as I provide arguments in my edit summaries.
Yes, I disagree.
The spirit of the "no external links in the body of the article" rule is, mostly, not to disorient the reader by mixing internal and external types of links. But this problem is only relevant to the article body, not to infoboxes. The structure of infoboxes is ordered enough, and they themselves separate enough, so that combining of different types of links in it will not affect the the effectivity of his reading the article anyhow. (It might even impress him ;) ).
There is no downsides to linking to official sites in infoboxes, apart perhaps from implicitly encouraging other Wikipedians to do it in other, less appropriate places in the article. But this is not our concern. 79.191.56.30 ( talk) 14:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Your way of replying is confusing (and you didn't sign your comments), so I grouped my reply. The infoboxes do look like Christmas trees sometimes, so it's best not to worsen the situation even more, don't you think? The arbitrariness is just one of the reasons why the links should be limited to sections devoted to them (some infoboxes have a special parameter for the external link), and the choice of which to include is clear - the subject's official web page and relevant pages that provide information not belonging into Wikipedia due to being excessive in detail. They should also be kept at minimum, meaning the official page and not much else. The standard way of linking to external pages is at the end of the article, which isn't so difficult to find (especially with the table of contents featured prominently near the top of the page), and any Wikipedia visitor should be familiar with the layout by now. Your accessibility argument does make some sense, though, which is why I just argued in favour of including the corresponding parameter in the infobox - you can voice your opinion too at Template talk:Infobox video game#Request for new field in infobox template. — Yerpo Eh? 20:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Welcome, I want to use the character Harold in my game 197.49.247.177 ( talk) 17:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article contains a translation of Icy Tower from pl.wikipedia. |
I merged from the Free Lunch Design article, which narrowly survived a deletion listing. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 23:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I did some serious clarification, and some formatting. The floyd 15:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Just download and install it. It should not be too hard, it includes an installer. -- ReyBrujo 23:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
it was released way earlier than 2005. I remember playing it 3-4 years ago!-- Sonjaaa 22:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I removed the notability tag, since this issue has already been discussed [1] in relation to this article with the decision being made to keep. -- Zagrebo 15:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
At the moment nowhere because the article is in dire need of citations (as the tag says) as well as major major tidying-up and rewriting since it's currently too full of big long lists and the like. There is plenty of stuff "out there" about it, though, thanks to its popularity. Give it time! By all means editors need prodded on this one but tagging it for deletion is not the same thing. -- Zagrebo 21:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I actually did a spot of research to try and get some cites earlier and found some good stuff including a news story about it being converted to mobile phones (I think by a commercial company). I'll try and get them into the article soon. -- Zagrebo 22:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
This article should really use protection. I find it vadalised, or being tested on, after each visit. And unfortunately some reverts do not even recover all content that was removed by the vandals. Well, at least we could infer, from the quantity of reverted edits, that the game is certainly notable for many people. That was per above sections. :) So, pity that so late, but I think I will file the protection proposal. Don’t you think? viny. tell // 22:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
It is not edit-warring as long as I provide arguments in my edit summaries.
Yes, I disagree.
The spirit of the "no external links in the body of the article" rule is, mostly, not to disorient the reader by mixing internal and external types of links. But this problem is only relevant to the article body, not to infoboxes. The structure of infoboxes is ordered enough, and they themselves separate enough, so that combining of different types of links in it will not affect the the effectivity of his reading the article anyhow. (It might even impress him ;) ).
There is no downsides to linking to official sites in infoboxes, apart perhaps from implicitly encouraging other Wikipedians to do it in other, less appropriate places in the article. But this is not our concern. 79.191.56.30 ( talk) 14:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Your way of replying is confusing (and you didn't sign your comments), so I grouped my reply. The infoboxes do look like Christmas trees sometimes, so it's best not to worsen the situation even more, don't you think? The arbitrariness is just one of the reasons why the links should be limited to sections devoted to them (some infoboxes have a special parameter for the external link), and the choice of which to include is clear - the subject's official web page and relevant pages that provide information not belonging into Wikipedia due to being excessive in detail. They should also be kept at minimum, meaning the official page and not much else. The standard way of linking to external pages is at the end of the article, which isn't so difficult to find (especially with the table of contents featured prominently near the top of the page), and any Wikipedia visitor should be familiar with the layout by now. Your accessibility argument does make some sense, though, which is why I just argued in favour of including the corresponding parameter in the infobox - you can voice your opinion too at Template talk:Infobox video game#Request for new field in infobox template. — Yerpo Eh? 20:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Welcome, I want to use the character Harold in my game 197.49.247.177 ( talk) 17:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)