Talk:TrekBBS
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is part of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |  Star Trek Portal |
-- Trekbbs discussion --
Thanks to everyone who's contributed to this page Borgs8472 17:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
--- History --- If we do have to refer to Troll Kingdom, then someone should write a new Wikipedia entry for that, it's slightly OT here :P. --
- Done. Malfourmed 11:18, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This article has been kept following this VFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
--- History --- Troll Kingdom’s history is intertwined with TrekBBS’s history. Also many of the policies on TrekBBS were a direct result of the actions of members from Troll Kingdom. Troll Kingdom is also properly noted as a spin off board since the board was created due to what the founding members saw as over moderation and restrictive rules created by the staff of TrekBBS. (Grandtheftcow 17:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC))
Contents |
[edit] 'Shameless parody'
I'm removing the word 'shameless' from the description of 'Trekbbs.co.uk' again. I queried #wikipedia about this, and opinion I received was that it is POV, unless the site has declared themselves shameless. Of course, I may be completely missing the point, so someone please correct me if I am! Michael 06:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, but I made/own the site, I declare it to be such Borgs8472 11:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] The "Trek Art" Plagiarism
I'm going to add a few sentances about the whole plagarism dobacle of 2001 (or 2?) that happened in the trek art forum into the history section. It was an important piece of trekbbs history, as it added many new rules to the board.
[edit] Enterpriser
Should the section be restored? I know he's a controversal figure, but he did end up as the highest 'ranking' poster before he was banned.
- Someone should clean up his section. It's a bit messy.--Cardinal biggles 01:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Delete
All I need to know is it's a message board. That's sufficient for a delete.
- With a community this size, there is more to know about it than that ist's a message board ChiLlBeserker 20:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dayton3
He definitely deserves a mention in the notable members section. I don't really feel up to writing his biography though .. anyone else? ChiLlBeserker 20:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Noteworthy members
Please cite sources for this list -- i.e. what makes them noteworthy -- otherwise it should/will be deleted for WP:NPOV and WP:V. --EEMeltonIV 21:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
ThankQ is currently holding a "TrekBBS Hall of Fame" where posters nominate, and then later vote on people who have made a big impact on the board. Would something like this meet Wikipedia's source requirements? In my opinion, it still smacks of a "name your favorite posters" thread, but the fact that people are voting on it lends it a little bit of legitimacy. --Cardinal biggles 23:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Forums listing necessary?
Can anyone explain why a listing of every single forum is necessary? Wikipedia is not Google; for the amount of space devoted to the list, it isn't a whole heckuva lot of noteworthy or significant information. --EEMeltonIV 22:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] EEMelton necessary?
Who the hell are you to suddenly pop out of the ground and be arbiter of what goes in the article? Was there really anything wrong with it? Or maybe were your widdle feewings hurt because you didn't make the list of "noteworthy members"?--Cardinal biggles 17:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, my god is this Mr. Bigglesworth? Take a gander at Wikipedia's guidelines re. noteability, and previous comments made in article and edit summary that went unresponded to. If you can make a compelling argument for their inclusion, do so. --EEMeltonIV 19:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- So because nobody else is keeping a hawk-like vigil over this article the way you are, that obviously means nobody cares and you're free to change things willy-nilly? Well, let me get out my Blistex so I can kiss your ass and thank you for saving TrekBBS the indignity of having a Wikipedia article that didn't meet every single guideline. For Chrissakes, it's an article about a message board about friggin' Star Trek. It's not a discussion of abortion or the war in Iraq or creationism vs. evolution.
- Do you honestly think anyone outside the community gives a crap what's in this article? It's a circle-jerking means of self-promotion. "Yay! Look at us! We're in Wikipedia!" --Cardinal biggles 20:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- The article existed for months before I even tripped over it, and when I edit an article it goes on the watchlist and I'm curious about other people's edits -- same reason, probably, you saw that I updated this talk page. Anyway, you're acting like a troll; feel free to post something that actually comments on the article or otherwise makes a substantive point. --EEMeltonIV 20:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- There's no point in suggesting any changes. I liked the old article because it reflected something of the community and its quirks and idiosyncracies. It now reads like the dry-but-factual encyclopedia article Wikipedia wants it to be. You win. Score one for conformity. --Cardinal biggles 21:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- You should have been satisfied with your multiple edits of capitalization, changing "forums" to "fora," etc. But instead you found it necessary to edit out large amounts of factual material. Correcting a non-neutral point of view is understandable, but removing paragraphs pertaining to interesting historical occurrences on the board seems to be nothing more than vandalism. If Slashdot is an acceptable article for Wikipedia, then TrekBBS should be acceptable also. Tarantulas 09:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- If they are facts, then cite them. --EEMeltonIV 14:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- There is no specific place to cite for these since it exists in the memory of the users, so how do you cite that? Scifi451 06:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Then it's non-verifiable/reliable material and inappropriate for Wikipedia. --EEMeltonIV 06:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- There is no specific place to cite for these since it exists in the memory of the users, so how do you cite that? Scifi451 06:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- If they are facts, then cite them. --EEMeltonIV 14:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- You should have been satisfied with your multiple edits of capitalization, changing "forums" to "fora," etc. But instead you found it necessary to edit out large amounts of factual material. Correcting a non-neutral point of view is understandable, but removing paragraphs pertaining to interesting historical occurrences on the board seems to be nothing more than vandalism. If Slashdot is an acceptable article for Wikipedia, then TrekBBS should be acceptable also. Tarantulas 09:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- There's no point in suggesting any changes. I liked the old article because it reflected something of the community and its quirks and idiosyncracies. It now reads like the dry-but-factual encyclopedia article Wikipedia wants it to be. You win. Score one for conformity. --Cardinal biggles 21:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- The article existed for months before I even tripped over it, and when I edit an article it goes on the watchlist and I'm curious about other people's edits -- same reason, probably, you saw that I updated this talk page. Anyway, you're acting like a troll; feel free to post something that actually comments on the article or otherwise makes a substantive point. --EEMeltonIV 20:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
