Talk:Roblox

Suggestions

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?]
• Per MOS:CAPTION, Images should have concise captions.^[?]
• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?] Thinking of Roblox Studio
• Per criterion 2b of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Headings and sections, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 08:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, a few of my suggestions:

• Remove citations from lead per WP:CITELEAD
• Try to make the article have a better flow. Some sentences are quite short and can easily be merged with other sentences.
• Expand the infobox: There are many more parameters that can be filled there; there isn't even a link to the website!
• External links should go above references (at least I believe)
• In § Development, it seems to read as more a timeline than an actual paragraph
• There are some sections that can easily be merged, for example § Players, is this really worth a whole section?
• This is just my opinion, but the article seems to go into a bit too much detail. All of the sets include a code that can be used to redeem virtual items.

Once again, just some of my opinions, I may be completely wrong! — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 09:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Berrely, I've implemented a couple of your suggestions, there is a bit of a problem with LEADCITE, since most of the content in the lead is not actually cited elsewhere in the article, we have to keep the citations there for now, or otherwise it would fail WP:V. I'm not entirely sure how to fix that at the moment, but expanding the "Development" section (which is definitely the weakest one IMO) to include a more general overview of the history of Roblox might help, and would also help with the other problems with that section. I am fairly sure, from looking at a few prominent articles, that References are supposed to be above external links though. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Devonian Wombat, sorry for replying so late! Apologies I was viewing on mobile and got confused by the references, you are correct on that front. The reason there shouldn't be citations in the lead is that the lead is meant to relay information already said in the article, but this is not a huge problem. Good job on massively improving this article (really comparing the current article from when you first edited it and now is astounding)! — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 09:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• I suggest splitting the Erik Cassel article from ROBLOX; Why on earth is Erik Cassel not a separate article? Erik is a vital person to ROBLOX's history, and articles like Alex Balfanz, Uplift Games or Adopt Me! have already been developed without any questioning from the community, so the Erik Cassel page should also be a separate one from ROBLOX. This does not deserve to be a redirect page. It's way more important than that. He also doesn't have a minor appearance like the developers mentioned in this, he literally was one of the creators of the game. MatEditzWiki (talk 15:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

  Notability is not inherited. Every topic is evaluated separately. For Erik Cassel to have an article, reliable secondary sourcing that meets WP:GNG must be provided. -- ferret (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

  Good source for Erik Cassel's huge involvement in Roblox - I believe these two together at minimum are sufficient reliable secondary sources. Countless articles from large outlets mention and build upon this trove of information. Shredux (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 20:15, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in July 2020, over half of all children in the United States under the age of 16 played Roblox?

• Source: https://www.pcgamer.com/au/roblox-is-now-the-game-of-choice-for-over-half-of-all-us-kids/

• Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by NegativeMP1 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

🐝 B33net 🐝 18:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC).

• Hook is interesting and matches the article (By July 2020, Roblox had over 164 million monthly active users, including half of all American children under the age of 16.) And the source also verifies it. Article looks good (recently promoted to good article status) and has no copyvios according to Earwig's (it matches an Aliexpres source but I reckon it's a copy of Wikipedia). No QPQ needed. Good to go. ―Panamitsu (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Can confirm the Aliexpres source is a mirror from this permadiff. Nothing to worry about. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 23:38, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
    • Apologies, but I fail to see how this hook is remotely interesting. It's just saying that the game for kids is played by kids. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 15:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
      • No, it's saying that a huge proportion of children in a hugely populated country are playing one particular game. That's something like 30 million kids depending on which population estimate you use. That's a pretty interesting degree of cultural dominance imo. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
        • @Premeditated Chaos: Fine then. I don't mind. I'm going to suggest an alt hook, though. ALT1: ... that Roblox players can exchange Robux, the platform's virtual currency, for real-world money? (source: [1]) 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 00:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
          • Without trying to be too much of a pill, that seems way less interesting to me than the original. Having a virtual economy that integrates real money is hardly new; ie Eve Online. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
            • Striked hook. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 00:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
        • @LunaEclipse: @Premeditated Chaos: I agree. Over half the population of children in the United States, the third most populated country in the world. That’s an incredibly huge number of people playing 1 game. That’s the equivalent of filling every NFL stadium thirtyfold (yes, I did the math) 🐝 B33net 🐝 9:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
          • Crazy math... Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 01:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

active users

It's trivial to find sources discussing the number of users that are much more recent than the figures used on the page. Here's just one such: [2]; if it isn't exactly what you're looking for there's many more. Adding update tag to lead. CapnZapp (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The figure in the lead and article is about the monthly player count. Not daily. This source is about the daily player count. There are infact an abundance of updates for daily player counts but I haven't been able to easily find any new figures for monthly player counts in reliable sources. λ NegativeMP1 19:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Blue Logo

This month, they released a blue version of their current logo. Waffles815 (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

The full text logo of the platform is still the same, so this isn't necessarily relevant. All it was is just changing the app icon. They also never formally announced the change. λ NegativeMP1 22:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I saw the update Waffles815 (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

also I'll look out if that bogus "Erik Cassel is the reason its blue" myth if it pops on the article Gonna eatpizza (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

A.S.S. (yes that's their real acronym)

Will there be any mention of Active Shooter Studios, the Roblox devs currently making games based on Columbine, Uvalde, etc? There is also currently controversy about the article that spawned a bunch of other articles was plagiarized from videos by YouTuber BlingMcqueen, released a month earlier. I'd link the YouTube videos but those links are blocked. Avienby (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I've added a mention of the school shootings that this group has been recreating in the same sentence that brings up how Christchurch was recreated on the platform, but I don't think we should be specifically naming the group, focus on these controversies, or give them much weight at all. They happen a lot but the article also needs to be written from a neutral point-of-view. λ NegativeMP1 17:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Understandable but also I hope some attention is brought to how the article that brought it to the mainstream stole from a smaller YouTuber with barely any credit and taking claim for the research Avienby (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)