• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

didn’t ResetEra use to have a Wikipedia page?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fat4all

Fat4all

Woke up, got a money tag, swears a lot
Member
Oct 25, 2017
92,358
here
Am I blanking on this or sommit?

I'm almost positive that there was a ResetEra wiki page that I added sommit about Street Sharks to that was removed but for the life of me i cant find it.

I wasn't gonna add more Street Sharks stuff, mind, I was looking for the establishment date and thought it'd be the quickest way to find it.
 
CallMeShaft

CallMeShaft

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
3,355
Alt-Right tried insulting us by posting bullcrap on the page. Era had a thread about it, and a few of us went and changed the page ourselves.

Maybe the right wing doucebags started doing it again and Wikipedia thought it'd be easier just to kill the page.
 
PJV3

PJV3

Member
Oct 25, 2017
25,676
London
I thought any old bollocks could go on Wikipedia as long as it was true, I didn't realise there was some grand council deciding things were insignificant.
 
Korigama

Korigama

Member
Oct 25, 2017
20,470
PJV3 said:
I thought any old bollocks could go on Wikipedia as long as it was true, I didn't realise there was some grand council deciding things were insignificant.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Wikipedia editors are very annoyingly particular about what should be on a page and how it should look. It's not even worth bothering to edit anything there.
 
KimiNewt

KimiNewt

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,749
Glasgow Mega-Snake said:
Seems like it was deleted (pretty recently): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ResetEra
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Please read this before making conspiracy accusations.

The fact of the matter is that there are few external articles and such about resetera (that aren't about the neogaf deal). Like someone on that page said, it's big enough that enough stuff will accumulate in a few years.

It's not like all other sites with comparable Alexa rankings have pages.
 
Squarehard

Squarehard

Member
Oct 27, 2017
25,821
Didn't Fat4all used to be a dog of science?

Can't believe gone down the path of billionaire canine now.

A great loss.
 
LL_Decitrig

LL_Decitrig

User-Requested Ban
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
10,334
Sunderland
PJV3 said:
I thought any old bollocks could go on Wikipedia as long as it was true, I didn't realise there was some grand council deciding things were insignificant.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's decided by general discussion in which anybody can participate, you don't even need an account. Then an administrator closes the discussion and declares the result, and actions the deletion if necessary.

The article could still be recreated at some point in the future, but it would only stay if there were some serious coverage of this forum that said something more than the bald statement that it's a spin-off of NeoGAF.
 
Protome

Protome

Member
Oct 27, 2017
15,671
Icemonk191 said:
All the shit they have on there and THIS is what needs to be deleted???

Sure Wikipedia
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You could get "all the shit they have on there" deleted if you cared that much and had a good argument in favour of it. The Resetera page was almost entirely about Neogaf, it had no good reason to exist outside of that page.
 
caliph95

caliph95

Member
Oct 25, 2017
35,129
Protome said:
You could get "all the shit they have on there" deleted if you cared that much and had a good argument in favour of it. The Resetera page was almost entirely about Neogaf, it had no good reason to exist outside of that page.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Maybe we should cause another controversy to get us a spot on the wikipedia vault

please don't
 

Deleted member 50969

User requested account closure
Banned
Dec 17, 2018
892
Hmm, it can't be about irrelevancy because the numbers weigh in ReseERA's favour. Even the PokeCommunity (I frequent there) has more users.
 

Deleted member 50969

User requested account closure
Banned
Dec 17, 2018
892
caliph95 said:
According to the discussion it's because we have done nothing of note besides the exodus of neogaf and don't really deserve it's own page
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Oh.

I used to feel sorry for Wiki when they had that banner on their website asking for a small donation, now they can sufferah!!!

On a serious note, we can't force them to keep the page, so I'm cool with it.
 
LL_Decitrig

LL_Decitrig

User-Requested Ban
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
10,334
Sunderland
caliph95 said:
According to the discussion it's because we have done nothing of note besides the exodus of neogaf and don't really deserve it's own page
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Wikipedia is odd that way. I used to argue strongly against the concept of notability, but it has slowly gained more traction in the Wikipedia editing community. I'd rather just stick with the original criterion of verifiability, in which case the Alexa figures would be sufficient. That discussion ended over a decade ago, though.
 
PJV3

PJV3

Member
Oct 25, 2017
25,676
London
LL_Decitrig said:
It's decided by general discussion in which anybody can participate, you don't even need an account. Then an administrator closes the discussion and declares the result, and actions the deletion if necessary.

The article could still be recreated at some point in the future, but it would only stay if there were some serious coverage of this forum that said something more than the bald statement that it's a spin-off of NeoGAF.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I didn't realise any of that was going on, in my mind Wikipedia was a mass collection of articles, almost too big to manage, like a dusty old library with bits that could be ignored for years.

The judgement isn't too bad as the page did make this place seem like Neogaf's skidmark without it's own reason to be.
 
Jer

Jer

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,196
Conkerkid11 said:
I'm confused. Is this draft actually up for review, or was this deleted? Seems like a solid page, albeit I didn't see what the deleted version looked like.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

A draft is an article that's being developed, but is not in the mainspace, so it doesn't show up if you search for it. The editor who worked on it submitted it for review, and if it's approved, it will show up as an article. At that point, if it's nominated for deletion again, it will go through another deletion review, and the community will decide if the sources now show it's notable enough to keep.
 
Last edited:
Nameless

Nameless

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,325
Yeah. Wikipedia is one of the few sites not blocked by my company's firewall, and of course the day I pull up ResterEra's page up someone had edited it listing it as a Hate Group.
 
The Albatross

The Albatross

Member
Oct 25, 2017
38,932
I agree with the reasons for deleting in that like ... websites existing just shouldn't be encyclopedic knowledge. It's trivial knowledge. Also a major portion of ResetEra page seemed to be about Tyler Malka, not actually about ResetEra. Sure, Malka being a creep and refusing to own up to his creepiness or step down from NeoGaf is the res en detre for this site, but it's not materially important enough to justify an encyclopedia entry of this site.

THough I'm sure the backstory for why it's really pushed for deletion is that it's some GamerGate/alt-right bull shit.
 
Axe

Axe

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,741
United Kingdom
Doesn't seem like the original article had much content beyond the incident that led to the forum's creation, so they were right to delete it.

Conkerkid11 said:
I'm confused. Is this draft actually up for review, or was this deleted? Seems like a solid page, albeit I didn't see what the deleted version looked like.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The draft was created after the deletion of the original article. Someone's putting in effort to create a notable, properly sourced article about the site, so it will most likely be approved.
 
Aurongel

Aurongel

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
7,065
A majority of the information on the page was dedicated to our messy origins stemming from the collapse of the former site, not exactly riveting history to begin with. Considering the embarrassingly pitiful Alexa rankings for the old site, I would prefer we let the page go the way of the old site and let it slide into obscurity.

Let the past die.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.