Video games Redirect‑class

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles Redirect This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

I'm not sure this article meets the criteria for Speedy Deletion under WP:NONSENSE. Maybe an AfD nomination would provide some good debate to evaluate its eligibilty for Wikipedia. I certainly have heard of this term many times. --Satori Son 16:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: Looks like we have a keeper. Thanks to all for the quality edits. --Satori Son 16:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, you can't call that nonsense, look at the actual article! 'mythical'.Maurauth 15:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "mythical" intro for the article was added as a sloppy vandalism reversion and I missed it somehow. I have restored more appropriate descriptive language.

At first I though you were just being troublesome, but thanks for pointing out the odd language, and sorry for the misunderstanding. -- Satori Son 00:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The picture posted is irrelevant to the article. There is no real thing as a banhammer. It's only a meme. I'm removing it for now as it's misleading the user to thinking that a 'banhammer' is a real object —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.63.28.134 (talk • contribs).

• It's funny! and it actually gets the point across nicely. -N 23:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really,It's just a hammer,usually,most banhammers have something like B& on them,and have spikes and stuff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.181.128.98 (talk • contribs). Ya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.28.134 (talk • contribs)

• N you need to state your argument as to how this picture is related to the article instead of just editing it back.Chr1z 18:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I made the picture: This object is specifically referred to as "banhammer" and is wielded by a moderator Dale Glass 18:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is unreated though. The article talks about nothing relating to your picture. It only refers to banhammer as a meme not an object in a game. Chr1z 18:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The object is a representation of the meme Dale Glass 19:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you can say that. All it is is a furry holding a hammer. It could be anything. Like the user above posted most representations of banhammer has b& on them and spikes. A better representation would be to have the icon for a moderator in Starcraft since the it is actually mentioned in the article and makes sense. Chr1z 19:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what can I say, that's the banhammer they use there. I don't see anything in the article saying it's got to have some specific shape or be officially labelled. I contributed what I had. And I don't think you can use the Starcraft one because I imagine Blizzard would frown on that. Dale Glass 20:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean that's what they use? Can you give a citation for that? To me that image looks just like an in game item that a user made in second life. 24.63.28.134 02:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely everything in Second Life is user made. The hammer, the avatar, and in fact the whole place where the screenshot was taken. Dale Glass 19:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I color balanced the existing image. It's much clearer now. -N 19:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll

Who believes Image:banhammer.jpg belongs in the article? Polling open from 22:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC) to 22:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC) (one week). Please add your name by signing with 4 tildes (~~~~) and an optional comment. -N 22:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closed: Even discounting the 4 single purpose accounts, the opposes have this 6-3. -N 22:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support

1. -N 22:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC) adds a touch of humor to the article.[reply]

   Comment: Humour isn't a valid reason for using a nonsensical image. ≈ Maurauth ^{(nemesis~☆)} 16:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Object pictured represents what the article describes. Article used to have an image that got deleted due to lacking fair use rationale, while this one is free to use. Dale Glass 23:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment: It doesn't represent a banhammer, as that's a user not a moderator. ≈ Maurauth ^{(nemesis~☆)} 16:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Reply: The pic in question is of an in game character. Can you prove to me that said character is, in fact, not a moderator? It doesn't pay to bicker over improvable points. -- Jelly Soup 01:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. In agreement with Dale Glass. However, if another free to use image is found that is just as good...well, that solves the problem too, doesn't it? -- Jelly Soup 09:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment: See above. ≈ Maurauth ^{(nemesis~☆)} 16:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Reply: As stated, if you can come up with a better image, the problem would have already been solved, right? -- Jelly Soup 19:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Reply: There was a better image originally, but it was removed due to fair use conflicts. The problem was solved then, and will be. "You can drive a car with your feet, but it doesn't make it a good idea." would be what applies to the current image. ≈ Maurauth ^{(nemesis~☆)} 20:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose

1. Oppose inclusion. Doesn't seem encyclopedic or particularly relevant to the specific topic. I do not believe it sufficiently represents either the concept of strict online rules enforcement or the "actual anti-cheating software that performs the banning action". -- Satori Son 00:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. I think that this picture has nothing useful to add to the article to itself,at the least,post more representations or simply remove it. — 72.181.128.98 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
3. I oppose the image for various reason I've stated above. To sum up my arguments: it has nothing to do with the article and is simply a vehicle for the user to have an image of his Second Life character on wikipedia. Also, wikipedia isn't a joke book. There isn't suppose to be any humor. It's an encyclopedia. Chr1z 02:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. The picture in question has absolutely nothing to do with the article at hand, nor is it a valid photographic representation describing said article. It also appears to be nothing more than a way to get an image of the original poster's character up on wikipedia space. 4.235.99.241 02:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. I oppose the inclusion of this image for three sufficient reasons. Firstly, the "meme" that the article is about does not relate to any particular, concrete image. Secondly, the purpose of the image is to serve its creator's interest of showcasing a work of his, rather than actually adding more substance to the article. Finally, the image itself is irrelevant to the article in its entirety because it does not in any lucid, particular way convey a significant idea pertaining to the "meme." Hence the image is unrelated and is employed to serve a personal interest. 69.139.152.64 02:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. oppose. The image is umm... well pretty unrelated. It is more of an Uncyclopedia image then a wikipedia image. It looks like origonal artwork, which someone then connected to the concept of "banhammer" Why not have an actual picture from one of the games? Sethie 06:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose. Furry with a hammer (thats a hammer? its too dark to say clearly) is not a good representation of a banhammer. Something like a hammer with "ban" written on it would be more representative, or some kinda logo of a program used for, and called, "banhammer". Shinhan 08:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose. Not even slightly encyclopaedic. Guy (Help!) 09:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose per above; not useful in any way whatsoever and not a representation of a banhammer. --WikiSlasher 04:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose Someone's furry from Second Life has nothing to do with a banhammer, can users ban people in Second Life? If not then it's also confusing for people not "in the know". ≈ Maurauth ^{(nemesis~☆)} 16:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral

• Comments

1. Just want to comment, there are an unusually large number of WP:SPAs opposing...You almost never see this many on a talk page in ust a few hours.... -N 05:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty unusual. Sethie 06:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And.....Pretty unusual.... that apparent meatpuppets are correct! :)Sethie 18:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the big deal with WP:SPAs adding their opinion to the discussion? It's not like there are a lot of big time contributors adding as well. Chr1z 20:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Says the guy with the 4 sockpuppets. -N 20:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as we can see from your previous contributions (which include vandalizing an article and an user page) you set a great example how to contribute. Dale Glass 20:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First I would like proof of the so called sockpuppets since I know for a fact that this is accusation is false. Please don't make accusations without proof thank you. Second, I have nothing to say about the vandalization since this IP is shared between a large amount of users. Chr1z 20:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. To the questions of why this and not a picture from a game: Because it's what I had to offer. I don't own any of the games mentioned, and I'm not sure about the licensing issues such a thing would involve. Dale Glass 18:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly why it should not be included. The internet thanks you for our effort but it just doesn't fit in. Chr1z 20:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is seriously WP:LAME—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree since N and Dale Glass have just resorted making up lies and trash talking to push their agenda. Chr1z 20:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]