Talk:Hattrick/Archive 1

Archive 1

Hattrick is a great game!

But what makes Hattrick so better than other similar games? That's a community. The first touch with this game gives you the feeling you are not alone. Evan if you are not a part of conferences.

Conferences connect other people together! There are many users whoo help others. Connection beatwen the users is not just virtual. Many of them arrange meetings. Evan if they are as different as choulk and cheese. Ther is alweys one thing that connect them...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.77.9.85 (talk) 07:29, 7 February 2005

Please keep discussion on the topic of improving the article, not how great you believe this game is. Also, please sign your posts. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • reviews)} 22:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral?

Hattrick is an absolutely neutral game!

Battrick!?

Why is the Battrick link posted here? I can't see the relevance in an article about Hattrick!?

If you check the WHOIS information for the domain, then there is no link to Extralives.

Don G. 01:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Battrick isn't worthy of its own page yet but is indicative of the growth of HT, Battrick is an almost identical construction of game and shares the same fundamentals. It merits inclusion as it is the first instance of HT growing beyond football. "Battrick.org.uk is owned and operated by Battrick Ltd in partnership with Hattrick Ltd, owners of hattrick.org, the inspiration behind Battrick." from the Battrick About page, also repeated by interviewer snowy11 on the relevant HT article page http://www.ione.se/content.php?article.279 that was directly linked from HT MLA 07:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

: Thanks for explaining! I haven't played Battrick myself, and thus i hadn't payed notice to the joint ownership :-) Don G. 10:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Links

I see some possible vandalism of the links page being reverted and it caused me to look at the number of links and to an extent agree with the peson who deleted them all. There are far too many links there and I would suspect that lots of them could be removed. Wikipedia is not a repository of links. I would like to start a brief discussion about the links and which of them should go. On other pages that I'm active such as Martial Art and Talk:Blood Bowl there is a continual need to remove the spamming of links and I feel that the same might be true here. MLA 14:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, most links are useless if you do not play the game. Althoudh I don't think it is vandalism.. I think the sources should be external links and that's it. Fopper 12:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Sections

As the text was quite long I decided to split up some information and rearrange some pieces of text. I removed the supporter info in the end as well, as 'supporter' was already covered earlier in the article. People who feel the urge to rearrange the sections in a more logical way are free to do so. --Tsjipmanz 14:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Future of this page

Here's what I see for the future of this page, as both an avid hattrick user and a slightly experienced wiki code editer (mostly on smaller wikis).

• Sections on:
  • The Season system, progression, offseason, etc.
  • The Hattrick Week
  • International play including HM/WC/U-20 (and historic winners)
  • Administrative people and their functions (HTs, LAs, MODs, GMs)
  • Controversy (Chinese Taipei vs. Taiwan, Sweden bias, etc.)
  • HT Mobile
  • The Community (mainly about the conferences system)
  • Game basics
  • History of the game
  • Country statistics (see Maptrick)
• More info on:
  • Supporter features
  • CHPP and TPPs
• Intro paragraph
• Better first picture

--DMurphy 00:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Seems broadly reasonable, I think that's a decent basis upon which to edit the page. The risk is that it becomes a lengthy article and gets bogged down in detail - I don't think that it's necessary to discuss the Admins for instance. Also the structure would presumably not be in the order that you've come up with. The reason I posted this is because I don't agree with your edit to lengthen the preamble at the start of the article as I much prefer a very brief description of what it is with details being put into the main body of the article. MLA 10:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I think at least one paragraph for the introduction is necessary to give people an idea of the content of the article. And no, I don't mean in that order... I just listed things as I thought of them. Obviously some are more important than others. A history section, Game basics, and Controversy should give a good core article to start with. --DMurphy 04:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

What about Hattrick Masters?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.13.226.116 (talk • contribs)

• In my opinion Hattrick Masters is too new of a topic to warrant its own section. However, it could be added to the International Play section and/or the history section. -DMurphy 22:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sources for Controversy Section

I'm working on writing the Controversy section that was mentioned in the above format, but the problem is finding sources. If anyone knows of any sources that discuss: Unfair bias toward Sweden, Disproportionate Midfield Strength, or the Chinese Taipei vs. Taiwan fiasco, then please let me know (or just be bold and write some of it yourself). I think this is developing into quite the article, but we still need that controversy section or it's an NPOV issue. After we complete that section and re-structure the Outside Hattrick stuff and Supporter stuff then I'm going to request peer review. I think the way things are going we might be at FA status (or at least GA...) sooner or later, which is fantastic for the game and for everyone who has helped with this article. But please, remember to cite sources (with the footnote citations if possible)... We're up to 12 citations and we have plenty of verifiability; that is all-important for articles about websites. -DMurphy 19:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of these 'controversy' topics are covered on the HT fora, not really the sources you can use (and link to) directly. In my opinion you overrate the importance of these topics. In case there really were serious reasons to believe in a bias towards Sweden or so, there would be more websites mentioning this. By the way, you can try and ask on Global HT forum for more sources, if there is a place to find them it is definitely there. --Tsjipmanz 13:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but there's no denying that a very large group of the HT community thinks the game has a disproportionately large midfield advantage. And though the Taiwan controversy might not be worth its own section, it was a pretty important decision and at the very least should be mentioned (when else have the HTs ever told a country they couldn't have the name that they want? I remember they even held a poll in Greece to decide between Hellas and Ellada for the name). The Sweden Bias I think is important but maybe less so since the only real proof to boot is the Sweden-Latvia semifinal of WC VII in which sweden scored the goal after all the other matches had ended in Live. If anyone can find a source for that, we can add it, but if not I agree that it's not too important. -DMurphy 22:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If you're talking about controversies, the whole issue about data privacy shouldn't be missing. Here's some info: http://hattrickblog.de/?p=65

> 30 kb

The page is 33 kb large at this point, and we haven't added the Outside of Hattrick.org sections. I'm not extremely worried, but it might be advantageous to take a look at where we are a little too lengthy now. The only area that seems a little bulky to me is the History section. However, Ione.se, my main source for the history, has been down and as a result I've been unable to complete the section, let alone cut where needed. I think the history section is interesting, but I don't see it to be quite as important as, say, the League Pyramid section. Anyone else have thoughts on this? -DMurphy 19:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The History section is interesting, showing the game's development into what it is today, and informative for newer Hattrick players and the casual reader. I'd prefer to see that staying, to be honest, rather than the pyramid structure, which is probably only of interest to actual players. Such information is available within the game, and is less likely to be of interest to the casual reader. Bastun 20:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review

I requested a peer review today (May 23rd, 2006) so that we can get a perspective on where the article stands, and where it needs to be improved, since we have finished adding content for the most part. Discuss the peer review here. -DMurphy 22:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Geographic Distribution

In the maptrick site, Hattrick have 860 thousand users, but the table in the "Geographic Distribution" section, have nearly 1,200,000 users.

I'm looking for a source to correct that, but I can't found. Arabigo 14:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, the 1,2 M is the number of teams, including bots. Tsjipmanz 17:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok. It's about teams. But, the bots are not important. To consider the bots, does not represent the real percentage of participation in HT per region. I suggest we change the table with the amounts of users per region. That is more real. Arabigo 22:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to do so. However, where the number of teams changes once a season, the number of active users changes every single day, as new users get assigned teams on a daily basis. Good luck with keeping the table up to date ;) Tsjipmanz 06:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ha, ha, ha. Yes, I know that is very difficult to keep update a users table, but we will always have the old recurse: "Last Update: day/month". Later, another person will make a generous update ;-) Arabigo 22:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to disagree here... it's totally unreasonable to expect someone to update statistics like that for users. Bot distribution is (relatively) proportional to the number of users in that area, and the statistic still gives a good picture of how the HT world is distributed. Plus, it only has to be updated once a season. In short, it'd be way more work than it's worth to change it. -DMurphy 00:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If anything, bot distribution is most definitely NOT proportional to the number of users in an area. The ratio continuously changes as people get new teams. Also, bot overhead tends to increase with league size (due to only the bottom 2 divisions being filled). Since all 10(+)-level countries (which are most prone to have a lot of bots relative to number of active users) are located in Europe, the ratio active users:total teams is bound to be smaller in Europe than in other parts of the world. So, in conclusion, the table does not give an accurate impression. I am with Arabigo on this one, and I volunteer to make regular updates to the table, for example with every Maptrick update (3 weeks). László 08:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

And I have made updating a lot easier for anyone by making an automatic wikitable generator script.

That's fine with me... I still believe that the representation of total teams isn't THAT far off from the distribution of user controlled teams, but I agree that a user representation would be more accurate overall of course. -DMurphy 09:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)