PPOT deleted from Wikipedia
category: offtopic [glöplog]
xernobyl: a url change doesn't change how people deal with a wiki. well, except when it changes to tits-are-awesome-alsoherescrapaboutdemos.com
dip: aww, you old softy ;)
dip: aww, you old softy ;)
Don't make editing THAT public.
who cares if a random band with random roots gets deleted from wikipedia? it's not like they are particular famous (heck, as far as i recall they werent even nice).
Is that article about that American dude's cat still on Wikipedia?
ALLCAPS is pretty shouty :)
so where can i see those "pieces" demos?? are they as good as bits?
it seems that Jason "textfiles sabbatical" Scott is more famous than PPOT, at least according to wikipedia...
seriously, who cares? I'd say there's a strong case for deleting the wikipedia entry on wikipedia on grounds of irrelevancy.
Give it another 10 years or so, and search tools will be capable of searching out the info you're after and linking it up nicely into an article.
Give it another 10 years or so, and search tools will be capable of searching out the info you're after and linking it up nicely into an article.
Having PPOT on Wikipedia is like having your local, semi-known Iron Maiden cover band on Wikipedia.
I hereby claim okkie the winner of this thread.
+1 internets for you, sir
+1 internets for you, sir
psonice, are you talking about this ? :)
no, but it'll probably be made in that :) I mean we'll be able to type say 'demos with hidden parts' in google, and it'll be smart enough to produce a description of what demos are, what hidden parts are, and provide some famous hidden part examples and a list of demos with hidden parts. The information is pretty much all there on the web, it just needs some cunning methods of pulling it all together, and people out there are hard at work on the problem.
Of course, it won't know the difference between a true hidden part and a fake "awesome hidden part" comment, but that won't make it less reliable than wiki ;)
Of course, it won't know the difference between a true hidden part and a fake "awesome hidden part" comment, but that won't make it less reliable than wiki ;)
Quote:
it seems that Jason "textfiles sabbatical" Scott is more famous than PPOT, at least according to wikipedia...
Well, yeah. He was probably mentioned on Slashdot once, which is considered a Reliable Source (bwahahaha), meaning that someone can write a Wikipedia article saying "Jason Scott is some guy who was mentioned on Slashdot", which makes him Notable and therefore allowed to be on Wikipedia.
Clearly notability is defined by some minimum number of Google hits, between 4150 and 42,200. Proof!
Okkie has spoken. This thread has ended. Move along.
some people just get a hard penis from selfimportance at big websites, learn to live with that. btw, you're all banned from pouet! *fap fap fap*
The Milkytracker article was deleted several months ago, it was "not notable". Really annoying for the guys who spent the time writing up the article and adding references.
GOOD RIDDANCE
They might be deleted from Wikipedia, but they will never be deleted from our hearts!
You got a good point there Okkie
Perhaps asking yourself whether your subject matter actually has some notability outside of a small, semi-closed group of people before you start writing a ginormous article about it could be a good idea. Saves you a lot of bitter tears when the deletion hammer later strikes.
