Talk:Mouz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Mousesports)

Question[edit]

Is this really encyclopedia content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.169.34 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pro-gaming organization. All the other gaming organizations such as SK Gaming have their own pages as well, to answer your question. The administrators are very much aware of this page and have commented me about it, but they have no desire to delete it though. DarthBotto talk•cont 21:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Mouseports no longer a part of the Freaks4U enterprise?[edit]

In the German language version of the Mouseport article there is a line that states"Anfang 2007 wurde die Zusammenarbeit mit dem Management von Freaks 4U aufgehoben und mousesports formierte zu einer Limited. "
which might be translated into English as meaning that since the beginning of the year 2007 Mouseports no longer is under the umbrela of the Freaks forU management concept. Is this true?
I have not been able to fid a scource for this statement.

Freaks 4U reports on its home page that it manages the following labels:

  • mousesports - one of the best male teams worldwide, being successful in 6 different games
  • NGL - the league of the German computer game championship
  • Gamesport - the coverage medium for esport in video, audio and written news

Catz - one of the best female Counter-Strike teams worldwide

  • Waaagh!TV - the broadcasting tool for Warcraft III
  • Inzzide - Berlin's biggest LAN Party
  • JE-Computer - Berlin's biggest computer retail
  • LAN Media - a media equipment rental service

[4U]217.83.154.110 (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fate of the page[edit]

I have been in a dispute with the user TheRedPenOfDoom since July 8, 2008. The dispute first started out with the user's nomination for deletion for the Mousesports page, which was overruled by an administrator in the discussion. I feel I was very aggressive and partially resorted to ad hominen in my comments, which was inappropriate. I have cleaned up this page greatly since then, but TheRedPenOfDoom still nominated this page to be merged with the G7 Teams page. I looked at other major gaming organization pages, such as the one for SK Gaming and I discovered that nearly all of the other professional teams have been nominated to be merged with that page, but have since been overruled. The Mousesports page has more references than any other pro-gaming page available and has references from Blizzard Entertainment itself. It would not make since for this page to be merged with the G7 Teams page without the other organizations included as well. I know this page can be better, but frankly, the Mousesports website has the majority of its content written in German and I cannot read it. The content of the Nihilum page is substantial, but I cannot write achievements based simply upon their World of Warcraft team. My request is to have a third-party opinion and for the request for merging be dropped. DarthBotto talk•cont 13:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it references its own web page - and has no thrid party independent sources ("Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors...) that indicate it is a notable organization on its own. The fact that other stuff exists is one of the arguements to avoid in deletion discussions -the existance of each article must individually meet Wikipedia's requirements. Once this article is properly taken care of (either through the addition of proper third party sourcing or merging to an article that is notable) then we can move on to other article that may currently not meet Wikipedia's guidelines. (and I feel you are misrepresenting the outcome of the AfD which was split approximately equally between delete, keep and merge - ending in a "no consensus" - the idea for merge was a result of the discussion - two thirds of the people voicing an opinion did not think a stand-alone article was supported by the sources.) -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion[edit]

In response to a Wikipedia:Third opinion request, I'm going to have to agree with The Red Pen of Doom here. This article contains far too much unnecessary detail about the current roster that can be found on the primary source site. If you take that out and reference it instead, there isn't much left to the article. Only two of the 12 sources cited in the article are from reliable 3rd parties; the rest are from the mousesports.com web site, and Wikipedia is not a collection of regurgitated information that's already available on the primary site about the article subject. Furthermore, one of the 3rd party sources is just a list of the G7 teams. The other one refers to a match between two teams. Those don't seem sufficient to warrant a separate article.

There's nothing wrong with merging. In the event the content and sources for Mousesports becomes too voluminous to be contained in the G7 Teams article, and notable on its own, you simply split it out into its own article again. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2015[edit]

Change gob b to fak 82.34.172.202 (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Mousesports. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mouz&oldid=1204098672"