[deleted]
Father of the moderm tiling WMs proposed for deletion in Wikipedia.
41–50 of 100 posts
Re: Father of the moderm tiling WMs proposed for deletion in Wikipedia.
#42I'm sure these policies are designed to keep up quality. Deletion is a great incentive for improving articles. Perhaps the best thing to do in this case is to fix the article at the moment there is little content. If you care, fix it :-).
Deletion isn't about improving articles. It is about removing them. If an article covers an obscure topic or person, what of it, so long as the article is properly referenced? There are many topics out there that are definitely arcane and of little interest to most people. Does this mean that Wikipedia ought to be a knowledge base for nothing but pop culture? I sure hope not.
Have you read the article? It reads like a blog entry rather than an entry to an encyclopedia. Wikipedia has been criticized before for not being well researched and factual. The problem with the article is it may as well be someone's opinion on the WM. I'm all for more pages but this does not read well. My point is if you care, make it read like it belongs in there. Wikipedia is not supposed to be an internet archive it's supposed to be factual.
Re: Father of the moderm tiling WMs proposed for deletion in Wikipedia.
#43Wikipedia should disable "non-notable" article deletion for a year and see what happens. The rampant deletionist problem really hurts editor morale. People spend hours working on articles only to have them deleted, often for arbitrary reasons. For a site that lives and dies by its ability to attract new volunteers, they sure do their best to scare people off.
Definitely: I stopped contributing (content and money) to Wikipedia after non-notable deletions ~2006 took out most of my contributions. At the time it was noted that it was easier to list a porn star (anything with a major distributor was automatically considered notable) than an academic who hadn't managed to get a real dead-tree newspaper article written about them (journals, awards, etc. didn't count as much as 2…
[deleted]
Re: Father of the moderm tiling WMs proposed for deletion in Wikipedia.
#44Don't have the patience to read the whole deletion policy page. Why would they want to delete such a thing? Is it inconceivable that some day somebody might stumble across the word "dwm" and look it up on Wikipedia?
Re: Father of the moderm tiling WMs proposed for deletion in Wikipedia.
#45[deleted]
In dwm with Mod1-m. Mod1-b if you want to hide The status bar.
Re: Father of the moderm tiling WMs proposed for deletion in Wikipedia.
#46I cannot agree with deletionists, but it's still important that articles cite reputable sources. Unfortunately, those same reputable sources are by and large the same ones needed for notability.
About a year ago, there was a mini-campaign on HN to save the article about Fravia. It narrowly avoided getting deleted, but look at it now - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fravia - it's still a terrible, rambling mess, with almost every citation leading to Fravia's own website. The information in the article may or may not be true, and we don't really have any way of knowing.
It really seems like something has to reach a certain level of notability before it's possible to write an article of sufficient quality about it.
Re: Father of the moderm tiling WMs proposed for deletion in Wikipedia.
#47No, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_(window_manager) is the Father of modern tiling WMs
Re: Father of the moderm tiling WMs proposed for deletion in Wikipedia.
#48Re: Father of the moderm tiling WMs proposed for deletion in Wikipedia.
#49!#@!@^% deletionists are ruining Wikipedia. They'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
Reminds me of the Hitchhiker..
Re: Father of the moderm tiling WMs proposed for deletion in Wikipedia.
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some spammers mirror it.. But that's about it. If you can work out a good way to share most edits between the forks --- because most edits won't be a source of argument --- then you have a fighting chance.
It could be as simple as mirroring wikipedia but never propagating the deletions. Trying to edit an article would redirect one to wikipedia; trying to edit a deleted article would instead edit the local copy (in the event of the article being recreated on wikipedia at a later date there could be an automatic upstream merge).
This might be a good start. Though you will also want to keep links to the deleted articles alive.