Difference between revisions of "Doom Wiki talk:Criteria for website articles"

From DoomWiki.org

(Outdated tag)
(Outdated tag)
Line 9: Line 9:
  
 
: To be fair, we have little recent experience by which to judge — frequent creation of website articles stopped around 2008, and there have been few or no VfDs (excepting vanity material so obnoxious that it would fail any guideline).  I seriously cannot see anything applicable on the pages you linked, however, so if this level of detail is needed (and if we can match the text to editors' current behavior), we should keep this page or merge it into the main policy page in abridged form.    [[User:Ryan W|Ryan W]] ([[User talk:Ryan W|talk]]) 01:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 
: To be fair, we have little recent experience by which to judge — frequent creation of website articles stopped around 2008, and there have been few or no VfDs (excepting vanity material so obnoxious that it would fail any guideline).  I seriously cannot see anything applicable on the pages you linked, however, so if this level of detail is needed (and if we can match the text to editors' current behavior), we should keep this page or merge it into the main policy page in abridged form.    [[User:Ryan W|Ryan W]] ([[User talk:Ryan W|talk]]) 01:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 +
 +
:: Sorry I was thinking about the language I added about *linking* to external websites, not documenting them. I still feel like the policy as written is in pretty good shape but I also feel like you're kind of saying that it simply hasn't been exercised due to the low number of sites that exist to document in the first place. --[[User:Quasar|Quasar]] ([[User talk:Quasar|talk]]) 02:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:38, 11 August 2014

Sites with a significant number of hosted sites that meet this criteria are also eligible.

I don't agree with this one. I guess its in there to cover MancuNET, but then we should have articles for frad.org, alkali.org, which nobody really cares about anymore, or slipgate.org, or telefragged.com, ugo.com frag.com.. which are really unrelated. Stretching things further, I host at least two prominent doomer's webpages :P -- Jdowland 09:57, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
I hadn't really thought of it like that, good point. Each case would have to be treated on it's individual merits, so I suppose that item can be removed from the list. - DooMAD 15:08, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Outdated tag

Seems to me we still largely follow this. However it's also partially redundant to language added to Doom Wiki:Policies and guidelines and/or Doom Wiki:FAQ, and so I believe the info, if it differs, should either be harmonized, or this article should be made a redirect to the proper section of one of those articles. --Quasar (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, we have little recent experience by which to judge — frequent creation of website articles stopped around 2008, and there have been few or no VfDs (excepting vanity material so obnoxious that it would fail any guideline).  I seriously cannot see anything applicable on the pages you linked, however, so if this level of detail is needed (and if we can match the text to editors' current behavior), we should keep this page or merge it into the main policy page in abridged form.    Ryan W (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I was thinking about the language I added about *linking* to external websites, not documenting them. I still feel like the policy as written is in pretty good shape but I also feel like you're kind of saying that it simply hasn't been exercised due to the low number of sites that exist to document in the first place. --Quasar (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)