Talk:Habbo

Template:WP MMOG

Archives

July 2006 - August 2006

September 2006 - November 2006

December 2006 - February 2007

March 2007 - May 2007

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. –Spebi 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). –Spebi 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)

The Raids

I just don't understand how the fact that people from 4chan and ytmnd teaming up to block the pool, standing in the shape of Swastigas and spouting phrases such as "Pool's closed, due to AIDS!" is not relevant or notable to an article on Habbo Hotel. After all, they caused Habbo Hotel.com to close for an hour, anyone dressed in the raid uniforms will be kicked from the pool and it is, pretty much common knowledge. They've got www.poolsclosed.com and there was even a hacking tool produced. Please, just include it in the article! --212.139.56.94 19:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have read the archives above, you would see the perfectly valid reasons why the raids have not been included in the article. If you want to know the short answer to why the raids aren't included, it is simply because they are not notable not verifiable. –Spebi 05:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not noteworthy, but definitely lulzworthy. --161.253.47.99 06:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Spebi, the argument doesn't hold water anymore. Lots and lots of people have been asking why it is not a part of the article, and saying that it is not notable contradicts the very basis of their arguments, for if they were not notable, no one would be talking about it.--WaltCip 10:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess so - excuse my bad wording. My point was that I did not want to bring up this whole discussion again, because it had already been discussed thoroughly in the archives. –Spebi 11:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The main reason that we can't put the whole raids and *chan stuff into the article is because of this. As much as I can't stand Seicer and a couple of others being such a wet blanket about this subject, they do have a point. Lannah 23:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The Australian Habbo has changed their pool attendant to appear similar to the raiders by dressing him as an afro-man in a suit with the name AfroDuck (whom the raiders venerate). Example: http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/1215/64238680sq7.png . This is confirmable by visiting the hotel. Their attendant says things like "Pool's Open" and "What a clean pool!", direct responses to the slogans chanted by the raiders. Does this admission of impact on behalf of Habbo have an impact on notability? Gokustyle667 03:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Anyone could have edited that image, and it appears that you have edited it. ~Spebi 03:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Scratch that. After visiting the pool myself, I see that you are correct. ~Spebi 03:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not see why people wouldn't put the raids in the article. It is a well known thing to people who play and a warning to those interested in playing. Not adding it because it involves trolls or something bad would be supressing the truth. If every article was ran like this one is then you'd see the end of Wikipedia. Get rid of the Hot Coffee controversy on GTA SA. Get rid of the JFK conspiracy on his page. The raids can be verified, they are noteworthy because they happen frequently, and they are important to serve a warning to new players about trolls. SonnyCorleone 20:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Please please please read the archives Sonny, before posting about the raids again. Also, how can they be verified? So far we haven't found any legit sources. Lannah 22:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

"The raids can be verified" — By whom can they be verified by? And this article isn't just for new players, it's for anyone to read. Wikipedia is not a internet safety guide. The raids cannot be verified by any reliable source (regular players in the Hotel are not included), and so therefore will not included in the article. ~Spebi 22:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't the moderators of Habbo Hotel bannings trolls during the raids be counted as them recognizing the existance of raiding and marauding trolls upon the Habbo Hotel? Or does that not exist at all because it's only "members" that have screenshots of them happening? SonnyCorleone 00:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This dicussion is dead. The Raids might have happened, but there is no reliable source to verify that it did happen. Nothing else needs to be said. ~Spebi 03:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. The trolls come back continuously to try to insert garbage for the sake of it being on the Internet. It's also a reason why its remained sprotected. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

So don't mention it because it's negative? Man, if logic like that was accepted in the real world... Hell, more than half the stuff on the wiki cannot be verified yet it has its own damn article and categories. Care to tell me why there is a page on Jesus? Can you verify that he exited as the son of God? Can you verify that a sucide attack in Iraq really killed 132 people the other day? The main page says at least one million people rallied in Turkey, can you verify that one million people were there? I can go on. Just because you do not like the idea of trolls attacking a game doesn't mean it cannot be mentioned. The Ebaumsworld page shows troll attacks...but Le Gasp! No verification that it was really DDoSed. Oh the humanity! Won't somebody think of the children? Do not let personal feelings get in the way. We all know that trolls attack the site, you know, I know, probably your grandmother does too. Stop pretending that you give a crap about verification rules. We all know you're only hiding behind them because you do not like trolls plundering the blissful Hotel of the Habbos. SonnyCorleone 02:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you are new here, here are a few pages to read up on --

*Citing sources: Those who have tried to include the "raids" fail to cite reliable sources. Others attempt it through vandalism.

*Verifiability: Those sources cannot be verified.

*Original research: Half of the crap that's been inserted has pretty much been up-in-the-air.

Hope this helps, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It would seem you suffer from an oh too common disease called speaking and not listening. You claim to follow the Code of the Wiki but turn your back when it does not benefit you. Where is your valiant Crusade against the other links and articles I presented before you? Why aren't they being fixed? Do I sense bias in your decision that might taint your egotistical nobility? I see no such effort from you to right the wrongs and bring people to justice. I just see you, cite rules, rules that have no de facto control over articles. Yet for some reason you use this and only this as your main defense. In fact you haven't even acknowledged an argument from someone else, just spewing the same thing. I can only wonder in disbelief that you would contradict yourself in a twist of irony. Now tell me, why wouldn't links mentioned above not count? The image of the pool attendent dressed as, named, and quoting the raiders would be enough evidence to incriminate OJ Simpson. What about the Pool's Closed website and forum? Wouldn't its very existance hint as the possibility that it exists? Or is this just one large conspiracy that would make theorists wet themselves in fear? Suffice to say, sticking your head in the ground doesn't make problems disappear. So trying to do the same on the wiki won't work either. SonnyCorleone 03:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't attend all articles, that is what other editors are for. My time is limited and I only came to Habbo Hotel after it showed up on my vandalism listing numerous times after some raid. I only continued to stay after discovering other raids were in play. It has been accepted by other established editors that contribute to Wikipedia in a constructive manner (i.e. not vandal accounts or IPs) that the raids should stay off for the reasoning I cited above. The issue is so dead and moot that it is not worth dragging up whenever a new raid occurs.

In the future, please avoid personal remarks as they are generally frowned upon here at Wikipedia. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If I made a personal remark it is only because you interpreted it that way by, once again, not reading properly. I only said that if what I claim is true then you would be seen in a negative view. But one cannot verify my claims on the hypothetical. I do not see a cite or a source, let alone a scholarly one. Now please tell me, why are raid mentionings allowed in the Ebaumsworld page, 4chan, YTMND, etc. but not here? Protect the victim but to hell with the attacker? And what about the Pool's Closed site? You have yet to comment on the conspiracy of the site not really existing and that all its alleged members can not be confirmed. I believe what you are doing now is a debate tactic. A very crude, primitive, and inefficent one. Ignore the opposition, state facts that vaguely have to do with the topic, and claim foul when things go aloof. Know this, and only this if you choose, facts, sources, citations, truths, half truths, and whatnot only exist if the majority of the people accept them to exist. So if people believe the raids exist then they do. This is why those other pages I mentioned exist. If people didn't have the slightest belief in them existing then they would never have been created in the first place. If people do not believe that the raids exist then they wouldn't try to put it on the article page. Now, please cease from ignoring common knowledge. It would look, by my unverifiable opinion, ignorant and foolish, with all due respect. But if you choose to continue it is only you that wills it since I have made no attempts to adding said raids to avoid confrontation. SonnyCorleone 03:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sonny, I suggest you take this to mediation if they're so unwilling to discuss such an important matter.--WaltCip 15:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry if you think it's non notable or verifiable, but as has been said before: The sheer volume of stuff on the internet proves it happened. There are websites made about it, there are videos and screenshots of it going on, it's common knowledge. And it will be invaluable for researchers of the future; in the early 21st century, people who used to play that long forgotten about game called "Habbo hotel" blocked it. If there's ever internet studies in the future, you bet there will be at least one lesson on website invasions and it's right up here with Ebaums world. It was a direct and planned attack on a franchise and they issued a response with the Australian pool guard. So, please include it. One little paragraph and a picture is all we ask. --80.47.17.221 17:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The Habbo avatar mentioned above http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/1215/64238680sq7.png really does look like Captain Planet. SakotGrimshine 02:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It's funny how "Pool's closed" redirects here, even when the information of raids isn't here. --Koheiman 04:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It is very depressing when I am forced to go to ED for information, isn't Wikipedia supposed to inform people? It's completely failing that in this article, it needs to mention the raids.--194.80.204.28 14:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Is linking to external Wiki's allowed by Wikipedia's guidelines? I mean, it'll be much more useful for people interested in finding out more about the raids if it was linked to ED. After all, some information is better than none. --Koheiman 05:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but ED has been whitelisted as the site is a heavy contributor to vandalism here. Any edit to include it would just pop up a standard template disallowing its use. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

---

• Lightbulb* I know. Let's take a vote.If this gets to 10 votes for either side, we follow that side.

1/10 Yes, we should include the raids. 0/10 No, they never happened 196.43.65.130 16:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Polling is not a substitute for a discussion. Wikipedia is also not a democracy. Inclusion comes through discussion, not by poll. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

What will you accept, then? What kind of evidence does it take for you to accept one of the largest raids in internet history? It's like You are denying the fucking Holocaust here. 196.43.65.130 05:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times before. Check the above posts and the archives for your answer. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I came here looking for info on the raids, but there is none thanks to some bizarre blocking effort on the part of some here. The raids are notable, have made an impact on Habbo that lasted and are verifiable. It should be included, lots of people are coming here for it. Especially now that people are being redirected from "pool's closed". The squirming to avoid putting them up should end. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.207.94.80 (talk • contribs).

As a neutral source(I don't Habbo or Raid) I think its very clear there is a consensus the raids should be put in there. The discussion seems to be pretty lopsided actually. There seems to just be 1 or 2 people against inclusion. I feel that its very much against the spirit of Wikipedia to not include it. Its not the playground of internet revisionists, and if Habbo Hotel warrants an article, this "raid" seems to warrant inclusion. If a well worded entry can be submitted, i think it would be kept. The only arguements from the Neg seem to be "Moot point" even though its obviously not since so many are bringing it up, and "unverifiable". But as mentioned before, people contend there is photographic and video evidence, as well as much documentation. I don't see how you could possible not include this. Theowannabe

If you need a reliable source that proves the raids actually happened, search YouTube for "pool's closed" or "habbo raid". You could also dig up the old threads from habbodiscussion.com, unless the mods deleted all of them after the forum was shut down on the day of the great raid. --70.130.229.175 01:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Raid Documentation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipACsinKe0Y&mode=related&search= Great July 12th raid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyM0Lwnvt0c&mode=related&search= Raid on MLK day

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR6oVOXVl9M&mode=related&search= July12th with 9/11/compilation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7mxHKICa8k&mode=related&search= more videos of an unidentified raid

As you can see there, and find for yourself via searching the internet there were mass "raids" on the days that are recorded in the videos. I think it would be more appropriate for evidence to disprove the existance of the raids to be presented, as there is ample proof that they did happen and since they have such a large impact on habbo hotel they should be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.152.200 (talk • contribs)

Good for you, but as previously stated many times over, that is not reliable source. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well if you do a Google search on the subject it comes up with several results, so you would assume that there would be at least one reliable source, and the number of results would suggest that the events did occur. However, the matter of reliable sources could be disputed. -- Kai ^talk 07:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The "Raids" were a non-event and not note worthy at all. IF the AU Hotel did dress a pool attendant up as a "raider" they can't really be that worried about it, can they... Hardly a case for inclusion. Every argument above appears to have more to do with the egos of the alleged "raiders" than actual fact. 02:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well for your reference you should should do an Encyclopedia Dramatica search on the subject (I would provide links, however this site is blocked in the Spam Filter), even though they are unreliable sources, it's worth a read if your willing to contribute to this discussion. --Kai 07:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

http://wikichan.org/index.php/Habbo_Hotel That writeup is actually more reliable than ED. Wikichan is a firly reliable, mostly unbiased website, especially compared to ED. 196.43.65.130 17:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, the raids happened. Nobody can deny the damn things. They are very significant to Habbo's history, as well as some of the largest internet raids ever. Wikipedia not even attempting to mention them in the article is idiotic. They happened, if you go to the pool(s) now you'll see them happening [probably], and there is no way to deny them. Now put the fucking things in the page already you pompous buttfuckers. Love, Tuatara

Official Fansites

I fail to see how Official Fansites are not mentioned *at all* on this page, considering they are a huge aspect of the hotel and the community spirit, which is what Habbo is all about. I think a paragraph with a few links should be added to include Official Fansite information. Prince.fanofit 20:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Per policyguideline through consensus, they cannot be added. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC) (Corrected Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

WP:EL is not a WP:POLICY.--WaltCip 15:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Then why are they on the Runescape page? (Scroll down right to the bottom). Lannah 20:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

They are not ment to be there on the Runescape page. ~Spebi 06:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Fansites aqe the next biggest thing in habbo. Why aren't they mentioned in the article. If there was no fansites them most habbos would only here about new news through word of moth and then everyone adds there own comment to that then the resulting habbo get the wrong info. Fansites need to be added to this page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.180.126.233 (talk • contribs).

TOChidden

I added the {{TOChidden}} template to the article because I believed that the TOC created too much whitespace. It has been removed again, but this time before adding it back in again, I would like to hear some discussion about the pros and cons of the template and pros and cons of just the normal TOC and its whitespace. —Spebi 05:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a poor hack that should rarely be used. This article has about the same amount of whitespace next to the TOC as any other half-way decent article. If readers don't like this much whitespace here, they can easily just click hide. Unless an article has an enormous TOC (some articles have TOCs with 50 items), there's no reason to use it. Even then, I don't think it is a good idea. --- RockMFR 15:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the page should be deleted

I think that the Habbo Hotel page should be deleted because it is a chatroom IMHO. I might be wrong about thinking that the page should be deleted. TYTT, I don't know. Fiolexgirl44 22:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Go to WP:AFD and nominate it. SakotGrimshine 23:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The only valid reason that this article should even be considered to be deleted, is that it might not be notable. But as far as notability goes, it does not fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines for web content. Even though it is a chatroom, it is notable and it does comply with Wikipedia policies.

Before even thinking about nominating this article for deletion, please try to take note that some editors are trying to upgrade the article's status, possibly soon to GA or A class. You should also look at the previous nomination for deletion for this article; it was also nominated for the same reason. But there was not one single oppose, and that was back when the article was really failing.

Now after hearing what I have said, do you still believe this article should be nominated for deletion? –Sebi ~ 05:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think what it's lacking to upgrade to a GA or A class is discussion of habbo pranks (like closing the pool). Get that in and it'll be a good article. SakotGrimshine 07:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You still don't get it. The issue with the raids is that it is not verifiable. Content that is not verifiable, will definitely not bring the article grade up; more likely to bring it down again. –Sebi ~ 07:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Also, I am not intending to start the whole raids discussion again. Should you want to discuss the raids further, please use above thread. –Sebi ~ 08:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not really raids. It's every day activity. It's pretty much constant in the pool rooms. So it's not much more difficult to verify than a link to part of Habbo's own site--just takes a little time to load and make an account, but then it's a constant thing. SakotGrimshine 09:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(restarting block) But then who can verify that it is a "constant thing"? A few regular players is not enough verifiability to include in an encyclopedia article. –Sebi ~ 09:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the article is stuff that can only be verified by entering the hotel and looking around. On the USA website it really is constant. SakotGrimshine 19:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Habbo.png

Image:Habbo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge of Articles

I suggest that sections of this article remain here, however I believe that this article should remain strictly about Habbo Hotel and not about the Habbo website as they are two different things. Sure the Habbo website is intergated into the Hotel but they serve different purposes. I purpose that something such as the below be applied to the Habbo brand.

-- Kai ^talk 07:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC) -- Kai ^talk 09:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The redirect was improper as a move would be the proper path. But even that, I don't see a pressing reason. The entry is about Habbo Hotel, and any mention of Habbo, the web-site, is a side effect. Both sites are co-related. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I am opposing against your ridiculous merge. Habbo and its Hotel are two different things; however where you are wrong is that the Habbo website and other features are FOR the Hotel itself, and not completely different things. The Hotel's scope is not as large as RuneScape's, which you appear to be basing all of this on.

RuneScape spans much further than Habbo Hotel. Habbo Homes, Habbo Exchange, and Habbo Groups on the article at the moment only have about a paragraph of information, which is mostly unsourced. To have 3 different articles for them just so the article can have a template linking all these together is a extremely ridiculous and inappropriate idea.

Are you aware that recently Portal:Habbo was deleted for being an underpopulated portal? I believe that splitting the article up into separate articles will not help the article at all. As I said before, the span of Habbo Hotel is not as wide as RuneScape's, and therefore a template to link them all together is not needed.

I am interested to hear what your point of view on this issue is now, after reading what has been said. –Sebi ~ 05:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Article Move

I suppose a Merge is not necessary (at this stage), However I think a move should take place. On Sulake's Website they refer to the Hotel as "Habbo", and this article is more so about the "Habbo" brand, rather than the Hotel. -- Kai ^talk 11:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Written like an advertisement

This article is written like an advertisement (overly positive,a buttload of details, etc). However, the protection on the page means I can't add this myself. Could someone do it for me?80.247.146.169 13:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done -- Kai ^talk 08:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article reads like it was written by (and is regularly being redacted by) a PR firm working on behalf of Habbo. This is becoming a huge problem on Wikipedia, particularly with tech/"new economy"/Web 2.0 firms. Wikipedia is not a billboard. Editors beware. Kwertii 19:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Which sections of the article are written like the advertisement? The article as a whole is not written like that, and was not intended to be written like one. It helps to actually let people know what is wrong with the article so it can be fixed, instead of complaining on the talk page about how bad the article is. –Sebi ~ 08:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's mostly the list of features, the way high reviews for the website are placed, and the way the whole thing sounds like the back of the box for a video game.196.43.65.130 14:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This is only a suggestion, but I think that someone here should sit down with someone who doesn't play Habbo and ask them to read the article. If they look at something and say "huh?", it's probably unnecessary information. Before deleting anything, though, reply here with what sections were noticed. Might not be the best way to go about cleaning the article, but at least it would (hopefully) be un-biased. YodaOfDarkness 05:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a "Game"

Games have objectives, Habbo Hotel doesn't. It's an open-ended chat client, Sampo Karjalainen even states so here.

"User's of Habbo refer to it as a game, but it order for it to be classified as a game, it needs objectives, which Habbo does not have. We consider it to be open-ended play." -(Something along the lines of)

In my opinion, it shouldn't be in the "game" WikiProjects nor should it be referred to as a "game" in the article, perhaps it could be referred to as an online community. So, obviously, "Habbos" shouldn't be referred to as "Players", but perhaps as "users".--Kai 08:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not go and change all the wording to "users" or removing it from the projects it is currently under the scope of until we reach a consensus here. Wikipedia is a community as well as an encyclopedia, and it succeeds because the community makes decides on what to put in the article, and not just one user going and changing everything in the article because his opinion is that Habbo Hotel is not a game. I do hope that you do succeed in yet another proposal, as your previous proposals for the article (e.g. merging and dispute of Habbo and Habbo Hotel) appear to have failed. –Sebi ~ 08:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It was merely a suggestion. I didn't say that I was going to change anything I'm just putting in out there... God, are you people afraid of change or something? --Kai 06:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Change it to users and change it to an online community. Theres really no question that it isn't a game. 69.136.162.114 19:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly. It's certain that Habbo Hotel doesn't fall into the WikiProject Video Games, it's hardly a video game. -- Kai ^talk 10:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)