• Archive 1: thread about AntiNeopian from August-September 2005 (and one comment from March 2006)
• Archive 2: mostly February 2004-December 2005; a few comments added as late as March 2006 (to otherwise very old threads); includes information about Thomas Deaton and Neopets (including sources)

If you go to this link on the oficial Neopets web-site, it says something about a movie comming out winter, 2006. Should this be mentioned in the article?

Joiz 15:34, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

That may just be a joke. I would wait for official confirmation. Aranel 00:31, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Recently there have been ads on the website for it, and i think its safe to say it has been confirmed.

I know neopets may be good, but a film is just too far. People have anime ofr that. --Neoadam 19:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plushies are okay. A board game is okay. A video game is okay. A movie, though, is going too far. -- PinkDeoxys 19:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't say it's a movie that's going to be in theaters, it might just be something on the website to highlight a plot. --Rory096 08:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O_O Its obviously not a movie. My 11-year-old brother laughs whenever he sees it. Ever heard of the infamous "blob" movie? Well, Jelly ::blob::s of doom is just making fun of that by saying it. And I have yet to see ::any:: ads regarding the "film". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.175.140 (talk • contribs)

Actually, Warner Bros. has signed a contract with Neopets to develop and produce animated feature films based on characters and worlds from the site. -- PinkDeoxys 12:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems real enough - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0475990/

Do we really need so many external links? The list now is huge. I'm inclined to say that we don't really need any of them. They're all aimed at people who already know what neopets is and are current players, and give information about how to play more than about what neopets actually is, which is the sort of content we want to have here. Including them only encourages other people to add their own links as well, which isn't desirable. If there was some sort of consensus about what the most significant one or two fan sites are, then I'd say go with them, but as it is, this reads predominantly as advertising. Rho 14:08, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Here's the current list, for reference purposes.

• Official Neopets Homepage
• Guide to Making Neopoints
• Pink Poogle Toy
• Nothing But Neopets
• Soup Faerie
• NeoNonsense
• Neopets Hive
• Darkest Faerie Lair
• In-Depth Battlepedia
• NeoHelpers
• NeoItems

Actually there are a lot of great sights to find tips and layouts. I just happen to play Neopets, and I use many sights to help me gain neopoints. There are also a lot of cheats in the games, which you might find in several useful sights. -cutienemo04

I say either leave all exteneral fansites links or remove them all. This goes to neoitems and pinkpt as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shellymelly (talk • contribs) .

(Please use #Suitability of Article below, to keep everything in the same place.) --AySz88^-^ 03:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are other good sites like NeoLodge and JellyNeo that post a lot of daily news, etc and are both fairly established? The Daily Neopets is owned by PPT, so that's basically a duplicate promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.99.110.100 (talk • contribs) 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Is one appropriate or necessary? An anon added one to the article and I've reverted that change for now. For those that don't know, "Jelly World" is supposed to be a hidden world on the Neopets site. →Reene^✏ 15:00, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

[199.71.141.254]: Hello. This is the IP address that added that link. Actually, this IP address belongs to a public high school in Canada. Apparently, one of my fellow students made that change (it's not too difficult to guess who, there's only one Neopets player here =)). I really apologize on behalf of her actions; she probably is new to Wikipedia. Please, do not block this IP address, as many of the students here use Wikipedia for true research, education, and occasionally contribution. I'll have a talk with her. See you, and thanks!

If you are going to remove the link, why not remove the whole mention at all? Jelly World has been repeatedly stated by The Neopets Team as not existing and that fact is stated in a variety of places including CellBlock, etc. If you are going to mention Jelly World, you might as well add the link. SandBoxer

There's nothing wrong about hiding the URL for Jelly World. I know it, and I would love to put it up, but I'm not sure if i can ^.^ Anways, in Jelly World, you can get free jelly, as well as you can get free omelettes a day too for your pet-cutienemo04

• Jelly World is an easter egg on Neopets. Its location is not difficult to figure out (and many sites online provide links to it). I suggest making a small section about a "Jelly World Controversy" stating that "although many users claim Neopets has a Jelly World, Neopets claims no such world exists. Many fansites link to pages on Neopets that they purport to be Jelly World." Factual? Yes. Concise? Yes. Giving away the secret? No. :) 24.91.161.139 03:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I wasn't logged in. That's me above. Gemini6Ice 03:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A section quotes that to access the Jelly World board a 'javascript code' is needed. Where on earth did you get that information from? I've been able to access Jelly World board by finding it by changing the forum URL's board= (or similar), going through all combinations to eventually find it. I can't remember the ID off the top of my head, and I don't intend to go to neopets.com anytime soon, can someone else please look up on this?

>> You can go to jelly world by just going to http://www.neopets.com/jelly/

To get to the Jelly World Board, go to http://www.neopets.com/neoboards/boardlist.phtml?board=18

-- PinkDeoxys 23:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If I recall correctly, you need some javascript funkiness (and a browser like Opera that will let you add it into the page) to post on the Jelly World board since it's not in the given drop-down list of boards to post a new topic on, but not to view the board itself or reply to an existing topic. Kiti 04:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This entire article and its spawnlets elsewhere on Wikipedia seems a gigantic commercial for someone's website, that is clearly one of thousands out there designed to part fools and their money. I'm sorely tempted to list this junk for Vfd; haven't made up my mind yet, so all you gamecruft addicts (and any sockpuppets) have fair warning so you can flood the Vfd.... Bill 13:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neopets is free, unless you have Premium. -- PinkDeoxys 13:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any more-tangible suggestions for this specific article, instead of just a VfD threat and a vague "reads like an advertisement"? (Although I would agree that articles like Marapets indeed need much cleaning up, if that's what you meant by "spawnlets".) As to the part about "parting fools and their money", I'm not entirely certain you've aquainted yourself with Neopets, since it's a free site with their Premium service not even visible to most users. AySz88^-^ 17:08, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Bill Thayer, bring forward a proposed solution to the problems you perceive instead of making threats, or you are going to find yourself being discredited by the community. On an unrelated note, I did some work on the Marapets article and hopefully it looks slightly better. --Sn0wflake 00:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I doubt this article is in any danger of being listed on Articles for Deletion, if it is, the editors over there seem to really like Alexa rankings. [1] As I write this Neopets.com is pulling an Alexa ranking of 131, which should be more than sufficient to ward off claims of non-notable gamecruft. Kiti 04:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it is best to either keep Neopets fan sites or remove all of tehm and only link to official Neopets sites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shellymelly (talk • contribs) .

For now I'm going to leave most of the links you deleted as deleted, unless someone has another opinion, but I'm restoring the link to the List of Neopet Game Guides, since it's a petpage on the official Neopets site, and it's been linked since November. Sadisticality 20:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People tend to immediately begin to re-add the links, so I don't think it's stable if we don't have links to the largest sites (by Google pagerank, perhaps?).

Alternately, we could try linking to just http://directory.google.com/Top/Games/Online/Virtual_Pets/Neopets/ , but it doesn't group sites that well because some of the most predominant sites are in the sub-categories. --AySz88^-^ 03:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's been shown by now that clearing all of the links isn't stable - people just re-add them. I tried putting the link to the Google directory, as the Pagerank algorithm is relatively objective, so we'll see if that works. --AySz88^-^ 01:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That experiment didn't last too long - Shellymelly (talk · contribs) changed all the links soon afterwards. --AySz88^-^ 18:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note from anonymous person: I'm pretty sure that this "Premium" thing no longer exists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.179.172.217 (talk • contribs) 02:50, January 4, 2006 (UTC). (moved comment from article to talk page)

I think it's still around, as I'm using it. --AySz88^-^ 03:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Premium isnt even close to being over. It is more popular now than ever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.97.142.121 (talk • contribs) 23:06, January 31, 2006 (UTC).

I'm using Premium as we speak! -- PinkDeoxys 13:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to the discussion about Thomas Deaton and Adam Garner allegedly being co-founders of the site with Adam Powell and Donna Williams, it appears that consensus was reached in favor of these allegations. The discussion refers to a flash animation and a legal document, apparently viewed by some of those who participated in the discussion, that are not available at present. It seems that as per the above discussion, some sort of mention of Deaton and Garner is in order for the article. Theshibboleth 13:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought of looking at the Internet Archive to validate or invalidate the allegations, but Neopets.com's owners have apparently opted to not have their site included in the Internet Archive. Does anyone know of any other sites that do the same thing as the Internet Archive? Theshibboleth 13:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through the discussion, there seems to be evidence of Adam Garner's involvement (a mention of a second Adam in the news section on Neopets, and a mention in an interview with Adam Powell, both linked to in the discussion), but not Deaton's (one mention on Google before this discussion, a flash animation that could easily have been faked and which probably wouldn't have had sound in the dial-up days of 1999, a legal document which hasn't had proof given of its existence, and he gets the location, even the country, of Neopets' original offices incorrect [Guildford, not Beverley Hills]). Adam Garner could be added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.135.134.231 (talk • contribs) 01:36, February 6, 2006 (UTC).

The discussion is very very old, and most of the original participants don't seem to be around anymore, so I'm not sure it's wise to change the article now. --AySz88^-^ 04:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add Garner, but not Deaton. -- PinkDeoxys 13:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that AntiNeopian should be included in Wikipedia because 7 ProNeopian links have been accepted. Currently, AntiNeopian is the largest anti-neopets site and, in my opinion, a link should be accepted to balance the ProNeopian POV in this article.

- Tezeti

If it is decided that no fansites be listed, this discussion has no meaning, but listing no fansites means that the External Links section will be very unstable, due to people constantly adding links to the largest, most-notable fansites.

It should be noted that this was already discussed. The previous discussion is stored in the archive (see /Archive 1). An RfC in the "Style" category was listed, but no comments were received.

I still think this Anti-Neopets thing is not notable, especially this supposedly "largest" site. On the day I removed the link, the site was only a forum, and it had recieved only 43 posts in the past 23 hours. "Balance" is not needed for NPOV, as that implies equal treatment, which is a poor idea for Wikipedia. (In Global Warming, you wouldn't give equal treatment between proponents and opponents, for example. One expert said that, even in its current state, the Global Warming article was giving too much to those who deny its existance. Wikipedia already needs to work on distinguishing between NPOV and giving things more than their due.)

I also don't think the other fansites are "pro" Neopets, as that implies that there is some sort of tension going on between two sides, which there doesn't seem to be. Things from Pink Poogle Toy were sources for many things in User Criticisms, for example. It seems like there are just as many complaints about TNT at PPT as at AntiNeopian, except at PPT that might be balanced out a bit by some of the diehard regulars there. In any case, if there seems to be more complaining at a pro-Neopets site than the largest anti-Neopets site, I really don't think the site or movement is notable. --AySz88^-^ 03:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do it the way PayPal treats paypalsucks.com; include an external link to it in the section on controversy but not at the bottom. Nifboy 01:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following comment was added to the main article ("Controversy" section) by User:Neoadam and moved here by me. Powers 19:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only 2 accounts have ever been deleted! It was in the neopian times answered by Donna herself...The NT is a news paper devoted to the users.--Neoadam 19:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My account was one of the ones deleted. :'( -- PinkDeoxys 13:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Posted by Jess, i Do belive she said Only 2 PETS have ever been deleted. Many accounts have been deleted.

Firstly, I have added a paragraph to the Controversy section of the article, summarizing the cookie grabbing scare which recently occured on NeoPets. Please read my paragraph and give me feedback on my writing skills. Also feel free to correct any mistakes I make.

Secondly, there are some broken links on Wikipedia. When I click on them, nothing at all happens. No new page loads and no error message appears. These links appear as numbers in square brackets. I think these links point to anchors which no longer exist. I don't know where the anchors used to be, so I can't directly edit to help.

Thirdly, I think that if we cannot confirm the claims that NeoPets had four co-founders instead of two, we should add it to the already-long Controversy section.

Fourthly, because scams are common on NeoPets, the most common ones should be included in the article for the sake of completeness. The reason is included in the next paragraph.

Lastly, I do not agree with someone's decision to take down information about the NeoBoards and player types, etc. because it would not be of interest to those who are not familiar with the site. There are many amatuer Neopians who may visit this article to find out more about NeoPets (like myself, and I consider myself an advanced Neopian and have been playing for over 4 years). Information about the abbrevations commonly used in NeoPets, player types, Neoboards, etc.

I hope you consider the points I have put forward. Feel free to contact me if you need to inform me of something, and also to give feedback on the paragraph I wrote about the cookie grabbing scare.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page Neopets Faeries should be merged into this page....

• It is related to Neopets.
• It needs rewording (It is plagiarized).
• It has been messed up from the start.
• I personally think it should be.

--B7342 23:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faries are a very large topic. It is at least a few pages big don't do it... -lego3400 —This unsigned comment was added by 68.170.1.82 (talk • contribs) .

Keep it as it is. -- PinkDeoxys 16:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said on the faeries page, that's all stuff that can sorted out by editing the page, not merging. I've rewritten a lot of it and most of it should be ok now.

I've noticed that although references have been changed to the new style, they don't work at all because there's no reference list at the bottom! Someone HAS to fix this; what's the point of having reference links without a reference list? Darkhooda 18:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i dont like neopets. its for geeks and nerds. it is sorta babyish

Everyone thinks I'm a bit of a geek anyway, so I really don't care what YOU think. -- PinkDeoxys 13:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References are fixed. Joelito 00:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completely necessary to have the 160 mil. thing in both the first and third paragraphs? Also, in the article, there's two sections on immersive advertising that say basically the same thing. Hanzolot 00:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking at http://www.pinkpt.com/neodex/index.php/Neopets and large parts of their article seem identical to the one here. I'm not sure which article on which site came first but in some cases the wording is exactly or nearly the same. (I first noticed that several sentences in the Basics section were word for word the same when I edited it today.) Cloveapple 03:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia one came first. Archive.org shows the information on the neopets Wikipedia page on 1st March 2005, the latest pinkpt.com cache on there is from April 1st 2005 and the Neodex page that has the identical information didn't exist then, it's at least a month younger. The layout is identical to Wikipedia's layout too, they've stolen it from here not the other way round. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Flamingo (talk • contribs)

Just as a note to everyone, I archived a bunch of really old discussions. That's why the talk page is suddenly much shorter. ;) Hbackman 01:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of external links now is large. Way too large. At the time of writing there are 16. I suggest these should be shrunk down to a more manageable amount. The amount seems to get higher and higher as more adverts are being placed on it. What I need is a consensus on which articles get kept and which don't.

My idea is to keep only one hate site,PPT,the two official websites and the 2 other highest-traffic sites and to delete all others. Give me your thoughts here on any ideas on this or any improvements to the idea. J.J.Sagnella 15:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So should I go ahead and do it? J.J.Sagnella 15:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. -- PinkDeoxys 16:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant! Someone agrees with me. As the reaction so far is positive, I've come up with my official proposition for the neopets links. See what you think. If a few other people say it's good, I'll go ahead and change it. J.J.Sagnella 17:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 4 links in alphabetical order (how it will be), no description will be made on any of the links, just the name of the website:

• Jellyneo
• NeoItems
• Nothing but Neopets
• PPT J.J.Sagnella 17:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good goal, but I don't think it'll be stable - people will probably end up trying to re-add more links again. What I tried to do was add a couple of directories of Neopets sites - Google Directory, the Petpage guide, etc. - but that didn't seem to work. --AySz88^-^ 21:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you think It wouldn't be easy to revert back? The current situation is more unstable than my plan will ever be. J.J.Sagnella 21:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can try it, but having to revert a lot against anonymous users probably constitutes edit warring, and stability is a criteria for both WP:GA and WP:FA. --AySz88^-^ 21:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about we just try it for 1-3 months and see if it works? J.J.Sagnella 21:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, you can try it, and see if it becomes obvious that it's working or not working. --AySz88^-^ 21:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll do it. I'll see how it goes. J.J.Sagnella 22:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 31 March 2006/1+2 April 2006, Neopets added NeoCharge which charged the user his/her own Neopoints to use many parts of the site. Shouldn't any information be added on this? -Oreos, 2:02, 1 April 2 (UTC)

This is totally an April Fools' joke. I for one will leave the information about it in the article (someone already put it in) for a day, just in case it's not a joke, but I really suspect that it is. Hbackman 02:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neopets says they're trying to balance inflation, which, actually, is a good reason to keep it up, but it has to be a joke nevertheless. Oreos 14:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, if they reduced the charges by a factor of 40ish, it would be good to kill inflation. --AySz88^-^ 21:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the article on Frozen Accounts, people being able to report another user "that results in unnessessary freezings", needs to be cleared. I admit, it seems that people can be frozen for the smallest of reasons, but also, Staff members are paid to go through reports and freeze whoever is breaking the rules. In the event that you are frozen unfairly, you will have your account returned.

I will obviously wake up to about 100 usertalk messages from people stating that they where "unfairly" frozen, and not had their accounts returned. If you read the rules, your account can be frozen for somthing as simple as saying can I borrow your *insert item here* for full collat??

It may seem to be unfair at the time, but in reality, you will not be frozen unless you actually did somthing. It has taken me quite some time to realize this.

I plan on going through these particular parts of the article and prune where needed to take out some of the obviously biased views.Sod Aries

If there are any biased statements without references to back them up, you can pretty much remove them without much protest. Of course, if you can find a reference, that would be better (i.e. "Joe Expertneopetsplayer Smith says that unfair freezings can result." instead of just "Unfair freezings can result"). If you really think it's inaccurate, find a source that sets things straight. --AySz88^-^ 21:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, plently of people do get frozen even if they don't do the wrong thing. Sometimes the 'automated system' cant even tell you. (Try login in a random account, try ado. use any passwords and see what reason comes up) Of course then there are cookie grabbers and such

Hey everyone. Great work on this excellent (and very extensive) article! While I was reviewing it for Featured Article status, I came across an important issue which hopefully will provide some impetus for a copy-edit - there appears to be a pretty serious abundance of weasel words which hurt the overall neutrality of the article and aren't backed up by appropriate references or citations. Here's an example:

• Some users believe that the users of Neopets are poorly treated and considered nothing more than mere statistics, that the site has lost its friendliness over the years, and that the level of customer service has degraded considerably. Many users believe that the Neopets staff freeze accounts too often and without good reason; data from Yamipoli.com, which rates virtual pet sites, shows the frozen user amount is 45%. Users are allowed to report one another; some of these "reports" are not thoroughly checked and thus, unnecessary freezing occurs. Bugs and glitches on games can also account for some of these freezings. Some users that had been unfairly frozen can get their account unfrozen by sending the reasons of wrong freezings. However, some users have sent in complaints, yet they have not been unfrozen. This causes them to turn against neopets. Yet, in general belief, not all innocents can get their accounts unfrozen.

I highlighted the particularly offending weasel words in bold, and the other uncited "some users..." (in italics) should also merit some concern. More information can be found at Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. This paragraph's only a small example, but they're found throughout the entire article. Alexthe5th 10:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the recently added comments concerning the now-defunct General Chat because they needed citations (concerning the girl being abducted, because I remember reading news reports about this),and added nothing to the section. The last two additions looked more like replies to a posted message rather than an actual article. If someone wants to re-add information about the Neoboards, research would be appreciated. Lmblackjack21 22:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{Jess} I posted that, i am trying to find some evidence. Possibly even scan the newspapers and post screenies of staff if i have too. If anybody has citation about this please post, i can't find much.

Would everyone be OK with just getting rid of this section altogether? Everything that gets added needs citation, which seems impossible to get, apart from the paragraph about it being female/child-orientated which not only needs citation of a place where people have complained but seems more like marketing at a certain demographic rather than favouritism. And it keeps getting hijacked with comments complaining about random things and users on the site that can't be proven, it seems more trouble than it's worth.

I have marked the links section as having a biased point of view because it fails to represent anti-neopets beliefs.

The critisism section has been removed before. I was not involved in the process, but I cannot think of a good reason as to why it should be in the article. Ixistant 16:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tezeti requested mediation from the Mediation Cabal here as the link to AntiNeopian.org was removed. I'm interested in mediating this.

I ask for a link to the diff page with this removal and for all parties to comment below. I can then begin mediating. Thank you. Computerjoe's talk 20:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]