This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
OnLive article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "OnLive" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
Archives: 1 |
OnLive was nominated as a Sports and recreation good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 7, 2009). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
There appears to have been a good deal of editing out of some of the critical analysis from Digital Foundry, and instead some cherry-picking of quotes pasted in instead, making it look more like a press release than an encyclopedic or in-depth look of the actual details or the pros and cons of the final product. As such, I've edited to attempt to cover all points raised by Digital Foundry. The paragraphs as they now stand are basically a summary of each page of the full and final article, and if there's any noticeable difference between the paragraphs as they stand and what the Digital Foundry article says, then we should discuss it here rather than, as appears to have happened already, genuine review and criticism being wiped from the article and replaced with quote blocks that seem to leave out key chunks of quote (e.g "the potential is quite startling" actually refers to CryTek's rendering process). If we can get some other mainstream reviews out there to see how they stack up the issues Digital Foundry raises - perhaps some that fall on the other side of the fence when it comes to lag or image quality, for instance - then that can only help with the balance aspect. Thanks. 62.56.113.211 ( talk) 18:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Digital Foundry is inappropriate as a Wikipedia reference, either as a positive or a negative source, for a wide range of reasons, including WP:SOURCES, WP:IRS, WP:NPOV, WP:REDFLAG, WP:PRIMARY. The two cited Digital Foundry articles self-admittedly directly contradict each other, to the point where one is called "Why OnLive Can't Possibly Work" while the other grudgingly acknowledges that OnLive does work, and then attempts to intermix what it represents as a technical and business assessment intermixed with largely negative commentary.
The articles are highly biased and contain extreme views from non-verifiable sources that are not supported by the preponderance of other sources, and are anything but scholarly. For example, the first article's flawed "technical" assessment included commentary from an anonymous video "expert" the author claims to have developed YouTube HD video technology, whose statements about OnLive's technology include "'Bulls***' and 'Hahahahaha!'". [1]
The articles read like WP:SPS self-published works, including wistful self-referential remarks from the author like "Perhaps it is simply the case that OnLive isn't for us committed gamer types." [2]
We need to bring this Digital Foundry WP:EW to an end and just remove Digital Foundry as a reference. There are hundreds of quality references for OnLive available that are far less biased, are self-consistent, and are based on verifiable sources. Let's build the OnLive article from quality material going forward.
Createk ( talk) 06:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
This clearly seems to stem more from a "bashing of OnLive" viewpoint. I can understand that, however all three sources are perfectly viable, and were correct in their sourcing at the time. What I would suggest are counter-points in the article that are well sourced from other reliable sources, thus providing a neutral point of view. The criticism of OnLive is not limited to a few sites, so removing them would flip the point of view the other way. The only way to resolve the issue is to balance it with counterpoints from reliable sources. -- Teancum ( talk) 16:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
References
In the Las Vegas, NV, area, OnLive is a "phantom console". (Yes, there's a pun in there.) Like the L600 about a decade ago, a claimed release, and yet nothing area. I looked at this article, searched the Internet, and then yet to about 10 to 15 video-games stores in the Las Vegas, NV, area. Most people never even heard of it at these stores. Apple8800 ( talk) 00:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it exists. Read the article and the citations for details.-- wikial ( talk) 17:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Whoever is spamming links for this crappy service on dozens of wikipedia game pages needs to quit it. CaelumArisen ( talk) 22:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Well if it is a way to play the game then it should be on the page, shouldn't it? 24.131.172.128 ( talk) 20:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Anonymous users (most recently it appears to be from 98.101.64.194, 108.20.188.126, and 24.60.181.184) appeared to violate Wikipedia: Neutral point of view by removing citations and the word " platform" with only opinion as support. As can be seen from citations, the machines and their related operating systems that run the games and applications are only part of the OnLive platform.-- wikial ( talk) 21:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I've opened a similar discussion here. What we need to be careful with is lumping the service and the device together. One streams to multiple outlets, the other is a game console that utilizes that service. -- Teancum ( talk) 13:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
For all intents and purposes of verifiability, OnLive is a "platform" -- this claim is supported by at least 5 sources. These citations are reliable and even if some editors may wish to question the source validity, WP:V is clear that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." So, yes, OnLive is called a "platform". On the other hand, I looked at them all, and they all call it a "platform" of various interpretations. None are specific that this is a " computing platform", which is what the article at its present form implies. Basically, the link to computing platform is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. We should remove the link (to avoid OR), but not the word itself (to follow unbiased WP:V). — HELLKNOWZ ▎ TALK 14:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
OnLive games still run on Windows thus are exactly the same as their disc and digitally downloaded counterparts, so OnLive is no more of a platform than for example Steam and we don't list Steam in the platforms section (or at the top section or articles like some games that are on OnLive have) and therefore OnLive shouldn't be treated any differently. Phrix89 ( talk) 05:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Onlive game are not exactly like steam. Onlive games are ported to Onlive using custom graphics for control input and needing hooks for brag clips and spectating. Also it's needs to be programmed to use the Onlive Dashboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.187.30 ( talk) 00:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, the introduction section is written entirely too much like an advertisement. I'm all but certain it was written by an employee of OnLive. I suggest that it be re-written to give a more neutral outlook on the system. 198.134.88.181 ( talk) 03:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
A See Also section really is needed to help balance this contribution G. Robert Shiplett 14:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Lots of people are saying Apple bought OnLive. Can anyone confirm this? 74.100.47.237 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
It was reported yesterday that OnLive has been sold for $4.8 Million, In debt $18.7 Million http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/10/10/onlive-was-sold-for-just-4-8-million-a-tiny-fraction-of-its-estimated-value/ 24.205.253.79 ( talk) 22:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Appearantly, a Onlive service was once considered for distributing Xbox 720 games. See here
I think it's probably a good idea to distribute older games via such a service aswell. Ie regular Xbox and Xbox 360 games could be distributed via the internet (from a central server). Distribution could happen using .iso format, and could be played on a regular xbox/xbox 360, or a regular computer (the latter could also play games of other consoles; hence acting as an emulator)
109.130.148.24 ( talk) 12:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
The pro service will supposedly allow you to install your own software. It was supposed to be out over a year ago.
What happened? Was it cancelled? Their website says it's coming soon. Define "soon". OnLive refuses to answer or acknowledge questions asked on Facebook or email to their website. I think it's a scam. 74.100.45.175 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
The article "OnLive lost: how the paradise of streaming games was undone by one man's ego", published by The Verge on August 28, 2012 and written by Sean Hollister is the subject of a libel lawsuit in the Court of Chancery in Delaware. It is Civil Action No.: 10046-VCP, available through the web. I found many objective falsehoods cited in the case including a doctored stock certificate, but independent of these falsehoods, the writer affirmatively refused to do fact checking, which fails to meet basic journalism standards. Here are 3 paragraphs from the case:
46. On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Mr. Hollister emailed Jane Anderson, the Public Relations Director at OL2, to inform her that The Verge would be publishing a new, apparently scandalous article targeting Mr. Perlman and OnLive—the August 28 Article—and that the editors at The Verge had decided not to go through any kind of fact-checking process before the publication of that article. Mr. Hollister’s email reads as follows:
Hey!
Just wanted to give you a heads up that we’re going to be running with a report that I don’t think you’ll like very much...
I originally wanted to reach out to you and go through a process and maybe get some of Steve’s perspective (which I’d still like, honestly!) but the team decided I’d done enough interviewing already and that the story was getting away from me.
I just don’t want you to read this and have an aneurysm or anything! You’re far too nice for that!
-Sean
47. Ms. Anderson immediately attempted to reach Mr. Hollister by phone and email in an attempt to fact check the August 28 Article and address any inaccuracies contained therein. At 1:12 PM on August 28, 2012, Ms. Anderson replied to Mr. Hollister’s above email with the following:
“Sean if it is accurate it is fine – that is the only thing I want to check before it is posted (and it takes 11 hours to fix).
So can you fact check off the record?
I left my cell phone at home, so can I call you?”
48. Mr. Hollister ignored Ms. Anderson’s offer to fact check the August 28 Article and did not respond to Jane Anderson, when she was reachable. After the August 28 Article was published, the editors at The Verge refused to consider Ms. Anderson’s efforts to fact check the article. Failing to convince The Verge to fact check the August 28 Article, Ms. Anderson’s only option thereafter, continuing through 2014, has been to try to convince other publications linking to the August 28 Article to do their own fact checking, and upon verifying the August 28 Article is false, to remove links to it.
49. Defendant’s decision to affirmatively avoid any attempt to fact check the August 28 Article is in clear contravention of generally accepted standards of journalism, which anticipate that any reputable publisher will contact the subject of an article before publication to allow the subject the opportunity to corroborate, refute, or comment on the facts asserted therein. Defendant’s affirmative decision not to contact plaintiffs demonstrates a reckless disregard for and, indeed, a “purposeful avoidance of the truth.” See Harte-Hanks Commc’ns, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 692 (1989) (in which the United States Supreme Court counseled a media publisher against “purposeful avoidance of the truth” in part for its failure to contact a “key witness” who could corroborate or refute defendant’s source). Starkcasted ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Zntrip, don't agree the article is credible. Columbia School of Journalism just reviewed a Rolling Stone article and no fact checking was cited as journalistic failure for article credibility, whether the end result was true or false. Here the author is bragging about the fact he is refusing to fact check. No fact checking, it's not credible journalism.
Second this article is one of two footnotes to this brief sentence, "on August 17, 2012 the company laid off all of its employees.". The original footnote has been there since August 22, 2012 (when you yourself were editing and obviously felt it was adequate), and is a "to the point" article dated August 17, 2012. This other footnote is an epic article dated August 28, 2012 that mentions the layoffs briefly. Someone added it as a second footnote in October 2014. If you feel a second footnote to confirm this brief sentence is absolutely essential, why don't we select among the dozens of articles confirming there were layoffs on August 17, 2012 which are to the point, aren't the subject of a libel lawsuit, and whose author doesn't gloat over refusing to fact check. Starkcasted ( talk) 08:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 9 external links on
OnLive. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
This article is about a former video game service. A new website launched recently called ON Live. As far as I can determine, the new site at www.onlive.vn is not related in any way to the old website at www.onlive.com. If the www.onlive.vn website is itself notable, then it should have a new article and must not take over this article — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 08:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
OnLive article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "OnLive" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
Archives: 1 |
OnLive was nominated as a Sports and recreation good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 7, 2009). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There appears to have been a good deal of editing out of some of the critical analysis from Digital Foundry, and instead some cherry-picking of quotes pasted in instead, making it look more like a press release than an encyclopedic or in-depth look of the actual details or the pros and cons of the final product. As such, I've edited to attempt to cover all points raised by Digital Foundry. The paragraphs as they now stand are basically a summary of each page of the full and final article, and if there's any noticeable difference between the paragraphs as they stand and what the Digital Foundry article says, then we should discuss it here rather than, as appears to have happened already, genuine review and criticism being wiped from the article and replaced with quote blocks that seem to leave out key chunks of quote (e.g "the potential is quite startling" actually refers to CryTek's rendering process). If we can get some other mainstream reviews out there to see how they stack up the issues Digital Foundry raises - perhaps some that fall on the other side of the fence when it comes to lag or image quality, for instance - then that can only help with the balance aspect. Thanks. 62.56.113.211 ( talk) 18:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Digital Foundry is inappropriate as a Wikipedia reference, either as a positive or a negative source, for a wide range of reasons, including WP:SOURCES, WP:IRS, WP:NPOV, WP:REDFLAG, WP:PRIMARY. The two cited Digital Foundry articles self-admittedly directly contradict each other, to the point where one is called "Why OnLive Can't Possibly Work" while the other grudgingly acknowledges that OnLive does work, and then attempts to intermix what it represents as a technical and business assessment intermixed with largely negative commentary.
The articles are highly biased and contain extreme views from non-verifiable sources that are not supported by the preponderance of other sources, and are anything but scholarly. For example, the first article's flawed "technical" assessment included commentary from an anonymous video "expert" the author claims to have developed YouTube HD video technology, whose statements about OnLive's technology include "'Bulls***' and 'Hahahahaha!'". [1]
The articles read like WP:SPS self-published works, including wistful self-referential remarks from the author like "Perhaps it is simply the case that OnLive isn't for us committed gamer types." [2]
We need to bring this Digital Foundry WP:EW to an end and just remove Digital Foundry as a reference. There are hundreds of quality references for OnLive available that are far less biased, are self-consistent, and are based on verifiable sources. Let's build the OnLive article from quality material going forward.
Createk ( talk) 06:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
This clearly seems to stem more from a "bashing of OnLive" viewpoint. I can understand that, however all three sources are perfectly viable, and were correct in their sourcing at the time. What I would suggest are counter-points in the article that are well sourced from other reliable sources, thus providing a neutral point of view. The criticism of OnLive is not limited to a few sites, so removing them would flip the point of view the other way. The only way to resolve the issue is to balance it with counterpoints from reliable sources. -- Teancum ( talk) 16:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
References
In the Las Vegas, NV, area, OnLive is a "phantom console". (Yes, there's a pun in there.) Like the L600 about a decade ago, a claimed release, and yet nothing area. I looked at this article, searched the Internet, and then yet to about 10 to 15 video-games stores in the Las Vegas, NV, area. Most people never even heard of it at these stores. Apple8800 ( talk) 00:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it exists. Read the article and the citations for details.-- wikial ( talk) 17:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Whoever is spamming links for this crappy service on dozens of wikipedia game pages needs to quit it. CaelumArisen ( talk) 22:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Well if it is a way to play the game then it should be on the page, shouldn't it? 24.131.172.128 ( talk) 20:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Anonymous users (most recently it appears to be from 98.101.64.194, 108.20.188.126, and 24.60.181.184) appeared to violate Wikipedia: Neutral point of view by removing citations and the word " platform" with only opinion as support. As can be seen from citations, the machines and their related operating systems that run the games and applications are only part of the OnLive platform.-- wikial ( talk) 21:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I've opened a similar discussion here. What we need to be careful with is lumping the service and the device together. One streams to multiple outlets, the other is a game console that utilizes that service. -- Teancum ( talk) 13:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
For all intents and purposes of verifiability, OnLive is a "platform" -- this claim is supported by at least 5 sources. These citations are reliable and even if some editors may wish to question the source validity, WP:V is clear that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." So, yes, OnLive is called a "platform". On the other hand, I looked at them all, and they all call it a "platform" of various interpretations. None are specific that this is a " computing platform", which is what the article at its present form implies. Basically, the link to computing platform is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. We should remove the link (to avoid OR), but not the word itself (to follow unbiased WP:V). — HELLKNOWZ ▎ TALK 14:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
OnLive games still run on Windows thus are exactly the same as their disc and digitally downloaded counterparts, so OnLive is no more of a platform than for example Steam and we don't list Steam in the platforms section (or at the top section or articles like some games that are on OnLive have) and therefore OnLive shouldn't be treated any differently. Phrix89 ( talk) 05:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Onlive game are not exactly like steam. Onlive games are ported to Onlive using custom graphics for control input and needing hooks for brag clips and spectating. Also it's needs to be programmed to use the Onlive Dashboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.187.30 ( talk) 00:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, the introduction section is written entirely too much like an advertisement. I'm all but certain it was written by an employee of OnLive. I suggest that it be re-written to give a more neutral outlook on the system. 198.134.88.181 ( talk) 03:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
A See Also section really is needed to help balance this contribution G. Robert Shiplett 14:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Lots of people are saying Apple bought OnLive. Can anyone confirm this? 74.100.47.237 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
It was reported yesterday that OnLive has been sold for $4.8 Million, In debt $18.7 Million http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/10/10/onlive-was-sold-for-just-4-8-million-a-tiny-fraction-of-its-estimated-value/ 24.205.253.79 ( talk) 22:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Appearantly, a Onlive service was once considered for distributing Xbox 720 games. See here
I think it's probably a good idea to distribute older games via such a service aswell. Ie regular Xbox and Xbox 360 games could be distributed via the internet (from a central server). Distribution could happen using .iso format, and could be played on a regular xbox/xbox 360, or a regular computer (the latter could also play games of other consoles; hence acting as an emulator)
109.130.148.24 ( talk) 12:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
The pro service will supposedly allow you to install your own software. It was supposed to be out over a year ago.
What happened? Was it cancelled? Their website says it's coming soon. Define "soon". OnLive refuses to answer or acknowledge questions asked on Facebook or email to their website. I think it's a scam. 74.100.45.175 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
The article "OnLive lost: how the paradise of streaming games was undone by one man's ego", published by The Verge on August 28, 2012 and written by Sean Hollister is the subject of a libel lawsuit in the Court of Chancery in Delaware. It is Civil Action No.: 10046-VCP, available through the web. I found many objective falsehoods cited in the case including a doctored stock certificate, but independent of these falsehoods, the writer affirmatively refused to do fact checking, which fails to meet basic journalism standards. Here are 3 paragraphs from the case:
46. On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Mr. Hollister emailed Jane Anderson, the Public Relations Director at OL2, to inform her that The Verge would be publishing a new, apparently scandalous article targeting Mr. Perlman and OnLive—the August 28 Article—and that the editors at The Verge had decided not to go through any kind of fact-checking process before the publication of that article. Mr. Hollister’s email reads as follows:
Hey!
Just wanted to give you a heads up that we’re going to be running with a report that I don’t think you’ll like very much...
I originally wanted to reach out to you and go through a process and maybe get some of Steve’s perspective (which I’d still like, honestly!) but the team decided I’d done enough interviewing already and that the story was getting away from me.
I just don’t want you to read this and have an aneurysm or anything! You’re far too nice for that!
-Sean
47. Ms. Anderson immediately attempted to reach Mr. Hollister by phone and email in an attempt to fact check the August 28 Article and address any inaccuracies contained therein. At 1:12 PM on August 28, 2012, Ms. Anderson replied to Mr. Hollister’s above email with the following:
“Sean if it is accurate it is fine – that is the only thing I want to check before it is posted (and it takes 11 hours to fix).
So can you fact check off the record?
I left my cell phone at home, so can I call you?”
48. Mr. Hollister ignored Ms. Anderson’s offer to fact check the August 28 Article and did not respond to Jane Anderson, when she was reachable. After the August 28 Article was published, the editors at The Verge refused to consider Ms. Anderson’s efforts to fact check the article. Failing to convince The Verge to fact check the August 28 Article, Ms. Anderson’s only option thereafter, continuing through 2014, has been to try to convince other publications linking to the August 28 Article to do their own fact checking, and upon verifying the August 28 Article is false, to remove links to it.
49. Defendant’s decision to affirmatively avoid any attempt to fact check the August 28 Article is in clear contravention of generally accepted standards of journalism, which anticipate that any reputable publisher will contact the subject of an article before publication to allow the subject the opportunity to corroborate, refute, or comment on the facts asserted therein. Defendant’s affirmative decision not to contact plaintiffs demonstrates a reckless disregard for and, indeed, a “purposeful avoidance of the truth.” See Harte-Hanks Commc’ns, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 692 (1989) (in which the United States Supreme Court counseled a media publisher against “purposeful avoidance of the truth” in part for its failure to contact a “key witness” who could corroborate or refute defendant’s source). Starkcasted ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Zntrip, don't agree the article is credible. Columbia School of Journalism just reviewed a Rolling Stone article and no fact checking was cited as journalistic failure for article credibility, whether the end result was true or false. Here the author is bragging about the fact he is refusing to fact check. No fact checking, it's not credible journalism.
Second this article is one of two footnotes to this brief sentence, "on August 17, 2012 the company laid off all of its employees.". The original footnote has been there since August 22, 2012 (when you yourself were editing and obviously felt it was adequate), and is a "to the point" article dated August 17, 2012. This other footnote is an epic article dated August 28, 2012 that mentions the layoffs briefly. Someone added it as a second footnote in October 2014. If you feel a second footnote to confirm this brief sentence is absolutely essential, why don't we select among the dozens of articles confirming there were layoffs on August 17, 2012 which are to the point, aren't the subject of a libel lawsuit, and whose author doesn't gloat over refusing to fact check. Starkcasted ( talk) 08:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 9 external links on
OnLive. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
This article is about a former video game service. A new website launched recently called ON Live. As far as I can determine, the new site at www.onlive.vn is not related in any way to the old website at www.onlive.com. If the www.onlive.vn website is itself notable, then it should have a new article and must not take over this article — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 08:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)