Talk:Habbo

Archives

July 2006 - August 2006

September 2006 - November 2006

December 2006 - February 2007

HabboHome

Lack of grammar in the "HabboHome" part of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spebi (talk • contribs) 04:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

You could edit it yourself, you know... Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to correct, somehow, the link on the Info Bus listing relating to the OPP, it should be www.opp.ca as opposed to www.oppa.ca.

Thanks18:45, 30 January 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).

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)

Info Bus versus Infobus

It looks like an Info Bus is spelled differently depending on the geography or who sponsors it. I chose Info Bus after checking the official Habbo North America Web site, even though the screen captures clearly show that it is different on Habbo UK and possibly elsewhere. --DeweyQ 13:04, 30 December 2006 (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).

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).

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)

Richest Habbo

Does anyone know who the richest habbo is? I've heard a character named americansheriff on habbo.co.uk. It would be an interesting fact and important to show just how important it is to a lot of people. I've heard of people investing thousands in it?

If someone can confirm some users of notable wealth then we could discuss the possibility of adding them. It would make them a celebrity because 66 million people use habbo and there must be some extremely wealthy habbos around.

Also the prevalence of scamming and scripting should be mentioned more, many scripters have openly admitted wanting to destroy habbo (destroy something which brings fun to millions, God knows why but regardless) from within and perhaps the many online petitions and general protest against the removal of the hobbas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.107.217.14 (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

I know americansherrif, hes in the "mafia business" on habbo, or atleast used to be since i havent been on it in months because i got banned. People who own mafias on habbo are usually the richest because they get alot of donations everyday. People told me i was the richest habbo to never buy credits and i got all my furni by owning a mafia Don.-.J 23:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

EDITOR'S NOTE - IMPORTANT

Every part of the Hotel DOES NOT have to be covered. - Hotel's Habbo Xs do NOT need to be listed - Every game on the Hotel does NOT need to be listed - Small parts such as furniture prices DO NOT need to be listed. Put yourself in the article reader's position. You wouldn't need to know everything. Also, when using the word "Habbos" try to replace it with "players" (e.g. Players in the Hotel instead of Habbos in the Hotel.

Unreferenced stuff and unnessecary stuff does NOT need to be in the article, and will be removed.

Sebi 04:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC) (Sorry, I know this is ment to be at the bottom, but I feel it will be noticed at the top, instead of down there.)

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

Logo vs. Screen Capture

Habbo Hotel
File:Habbo Hotel logo.gif File:HabboAUGuestRoom.png
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

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)

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)

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.

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. --Spebi^[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)