Print

Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[DisaffectedBeta]

I'm curious, what was the content, specifically.  You can memorialize it here :)

[Zeb]

Aw, we failed. ;_;

I just wish we had gotten that usercheck on that Minimiki bastard. He was suspicious as hell.

[DisaffectedBeta]

We can still make an entry in the main roguelike section.

I'm guessing some of the more zealous anti-contesters were probably attacked by roguelikes when they were a child, and have been lashing out against them ever since.

[BDR]

Instead of feeling sad that we weren't popular enough to satisfy the Wikinerds, I prefer to read this site and laugh/gawk at their craziness. :)

[Kornel Kisielewicz]

Duh, CastlevaniaRL got deleted, then GearHead, then finally 7DRL. I recently "protected" DoomRL from deletion (it got speedy deleted along Dwarf Fortress and GearHead). Wikipedia is saad. Now only DoomRL and Dwarf Fortress defend the current roguelike scene. DF is I think safe, but I wouldn't be surprised if DoomRL got attacked again. At least it has some printed sources to defend with :/.

[Aerton]

Now only DoomRL and Dwarf Fortress defend the current roguelike scene.

Rogue, NetHack, Angband, Omega and others do not count?

Although the deletion trend is quite troubling...

[zaimoni]

Regrettably, it doesn't seem to just be legitimate recreational articles up for deletion.

I've taken to backing up hard science pages as insurance during the current administrative policy panic (dating back to ~Jan 2007, and ongoing).  I think I've seen some esoteric ones I didn't need get removed for no reason -- so just back them all up, as they clearly have no problems deleting anything that is both not Politically Correct and beyond their limited knowledge.

[BDR]

I find the whole idea that any sort of pages relating to a topic that actually exists *have* to be deleted because of obscurity ludicrous.  Is Wikipedia in danger of running out of room for more articles?  Are pages that are only visited once every 10 years somehow a threat to Wikipedia security?  Is 'fancruft' a threat to the nature of Wikipedia just because x% of the people aren't interested and thus producing an amount y of content revolving around said topic, or because it somehow makes Wikipedia look inferior to a normal encyclopedia even though part of what makes an encyclopedia good is completeness?  What the *hell* happened to making Wikipedia a source of all human knowledge; who the **** became king and declared that they were the only ones who could rightfully know or determine what qualified as knowledge and what qualified as crap to delete from the human consciousness?  I can see deleting joke pages, or pages revolving around topics made up specifically for seeing what you could get on the Wikipedia without anyone noticing, but when pages revolving around stuff that real people worked on and that you can see for yourself if you care to look beyond the normal edges of your computer screen and hangouts are equally deigned trash to be hauled, there's something seriously broken.

But the whole thing is massive, and probably will stick around for a while.  Eventually something better designed and more sanely mantained will come along, and that will be the end of it; till then we'll just have to find smaller but nicer places to put information about this stuff.  Those who care to look will come, and those who don't probably wouldn't appreciate it anyway.

[Kornel Kisielewicz]

Now only DoomRL and Dwarf Fortress defend the current roguelike scene.

Rogue, NetHack, Angband, Omega and others do not count?

I said "current" scene :)

[DisaffectedBeta]

What sort of articles have you had to back up, Zaimoni?

[Santiago Zapata]

Mind you, even the Roguelike article has been considered for deletion... wikipedia has lot all of its charm to me

If I want to see an encyclopedia with strictly verifiable, academic content, I'd rather visit a library... methinks the people that are actually trying to make it better do not realize this.

[zaimoni]

What sort of articles have you had to back up, Zaimoni?

I'm backing up anything I may need to refer to in bootstrapping my second business.  [Strictly, an LLC I'm a founding member of; ....]

In practice, this means any page with substantive content in:
* Thermodynamics
* Kinetic gas theory/statistical mechanics
** At least three useful concrete-example pages are nominated for later deletion here, apparently because they require background equivalent to a higher degree in one of mathematics, physics, or chemistry to immediately understand.  I formally have this background (Master's in mathematics).
* Chemical reaction kinetics
* Chemical equilibria

In these domains, there currently is no other equivalently competent central website.  The next best contender for chemical equilibria is IUPAC, but they don't have sketched derivations. (Which is a critical problem, as I need to understand the models well enough to rederive them correctly.  I've already found a fundamental example where the standard construction is formally wrong.)

For the other domains mentioned, there is no "next best contender".

[Zeb]

Funny that they'd delete articles like that, but leave hundreds of articles on video game characters that are of no possible use to anyone.

Oh well. I stopped really caring about Wikipedia after my main account got banned during the Encyclopedia Dramatica witchhunt. I had been on the fast track to adminship too...

[Jim9137]

If they want verifiable sources, link to homepages of 7DRL/*RL/etc and describe the game in "DoomRL is a rogue-like that is based upon Doom."

And that'd be about it.

Yeup. Unless they decide to be snappy and protect it from edits.

[Kornel Kisielewicz]

The problem is that all roguelikes sources are "self-published" so "not verifyable".