Talk:Crossfire (2007 video game)

Vandalism

Page should be rolled back to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CrossFire_(game)&oldid=605238230 to correct vandalism by user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/112.205.184.87 Thkie (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Article name

Well, should have looked before I leapt maybe. I see this article has been moved a couple times in the last 2-3 months. Without looking, I moved it after trying to navigate about a dozen redirects for this article and the two older games named Crossfire, which I also moved, Crossfire (1981 video game) and Crossfire (1992 video game). I'm not opposed to moving it back, I guess, but I think this is clearer. Thoughts? -- ferret (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've moved it back, because the game is entitled CrossFire, not Crossfire, and neither of the other games is titled CrossFire. Thus, it was an unnecessary disambiguation as well as a move to an incorrect title - please pay more attention in future. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It's NOT VANDALISM if MY Edit Summary is valid

View History? READ EDIT REASONS AND ACKNOWLEDGE THE REASON. A valid reason is given. Listen to it and don't re-introduce virus infected links, superfluous mentions of the exact same information, one reference will suffice, especially from the more trustworthy and more concise article, ALONG WITH ARTICLES THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE REFERENCE IN QUESTION.

I don't have the patience for the lack of acknowledgement of my valid Edit Statement, I'm not going to bother putting one next time, don't re-add toxic links and irrelevant or unnecessary inferior duplicate references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MontgomeryDalton (talk • contribs) 02:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Which links are toxic? There are multiple reliable sources, why are you removing them? Because they are redundant? That's not a valid reason, please take a look at WP:RS and remember that just because you're confident in your edits doesn't excuse you from having to collaborate with other editors. Grayfell (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, from the user's talk page I pulled some teeth and got an explanation that the news.mmosite.com link may contain malware. For the record, according to Special:LinkSearch, that site isn't linked anywhere else. I'm not getting any warnings, myself, and the site is large enough and old enough that I have a feeling that if anything it may be due to lax advertising screening rather than the site itself being malicious. The site's editorial guidelines are not obvious, and it's very far from a good source, so it's no great loss.

Most of the other sources failed to support the attached claims, but the neowizgames.com one looks like a case of WP:LINKROT rather than a bad source. The page does link to a PDF of their most recent quarterly finances, so it's likely that it used to support the claims but it's English content is minimal, and I didn't see any archives. After looking over it, even the good sources were just cobbled together WP:OR which supported a fairly vague statement. I've removed the section, and will pull out a couple of the better sources for the larger article. Grayfell (talk) 05:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Chiming in simply to add that mmosite.com is unreliable per WP:VG/RS. I recommend that MontgomeryDalton make multiple smaller edits in the future however so it's clearer why each particular link was being removed. -- ferret (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• mmosite.com should probably go, but there is no justification for removing any of the other sources. I agree that the section wasn't great. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The user-talk rationale for removing the links includes some valid reasons and some not-so-valid ones. The Forbes one doesn't mention CrossFire at all. I think the This Is Game one is probably okay. It's a very simple English-language version of a larger Korean gaming site, so it's probably RS. (Maybe?) The Chicago Trib one is clearly RS, but it's also a broad statement in an story that's only tangentially related. Kotaku is a reliable source, but the story itself barely mentioned CrossFire, and it was a quote that was pulled from the Gamesindustry.biz source, which is also kind of a tangent. Using the NeoWiz Games 4th quarter report is dicey, because it's about the company, not the game. Using historical exchange rates to try and convert currency while also adjusting for inflation is confusing and verging on WP:OR. So I'm not sure what to do with these source. Grayfell (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Business model

The article says it's "free-to-play" yet is has made a huge amount of money. Is this via micro-transactions, fremium, donations? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC).

Crossfire Stars

Should there be CrossFire Stars in the CrossFire article? It also had been featured in various media outlets. 13RPZ (talk) 09:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)