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

Latest revision as of 10:16, 14 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Outdated tag[edit]

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)

I meant to say, I feel like you DO, that it hasn't been exercised due to lack of need. --Quasar (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The point is taken that we shouldn't tag something outdated without evidence.  (Else, we'd be forced to review all pages in a rotation, like a corporate HR task force, and we have enough trouble getting input on policies with clear problems!)  OTOH we don't know where the next blowup will come, because we didn't see the previous ones coming either.  Fraggle's person criteria sounded totally reasonable at the time; maybe some editors still think so.  I often stumped for the "binary" WAD criterion in the current text, because it was easy to understand and no one would deny that proposed mods usually never get released.  Shows what I know.

A related issue (IMO) with our notability guidelines is that they have style and content suggestions mixed in, whereas editors tend to consider those only after inclusion vs deletion has been settled.  Maybe we should consolidate inclusion vs deletion arguments into one split-off page, instead of splitting by topic, and merge the other stuff into the main rules page.    Ryan W (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)