Talk:Guardian.co.uk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 List of users 2 Moderators 3 Maturing content 4 Other 5 Proposed changes 6 History 7 hoib 7.1 I agree 8 Where are the wings 9 New Design 10 No longer "Unlimited", so rename article? 11 Requested move 11.1 Survey 11.2 Discussion

[edit] List of users

Good to see all sorts of stuff appearing on this page, too - been meaning to write up GU Talk for some time, looks like a critical mass of GU usiong Wikipedians is being reached. And we need that lsit of users on there! --Vodex 01:01, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'd say a list of users isn't needed, and is not really what wikipedia is for MyNameIsClare talk 05:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I've changed "Best-Loved Posters" back to "Prominent Posters" for now since I don't relly think Callidice was very well loved... BUT I'm not sure the section should be there at all and it is too in-jokey at the moment. MyNameIsClare talk 08:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Agree with MynameisClare - any addition of 'much loved' or 'prominent' posters will be far too subjective and/or will eventually become completely unwieldy. The entry is better off without it. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:50, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I think maybe the best thing to do would be to edit out mentions of specific posters, otherwise people will just use it for ego tripping and point scoring - Moist

I disagree. Perhaps we should name GUTalk posters, their multiple usernames, their positionss etc.

[edit] Moderators

The following is from the Guardian's talk page:

Note, They have a forum which has many virtues. many erudite posters, but... is extremely poorly moderated. For instance, they have two 'policies' pages, one is extremely liberal (the one which is available from the ordinary users pages) and has four elements. The worst censure there is is "ocassional" removal of text, which "they really hate to do". They have another, hidden ( if one sees the first (s)he will not expect a second ) much longer and leads to banning at the drop of a hat. I've seen gangs of posters hunting down and mercilessly harrasing individuals with no response from mods after complaints. When the offended returns the offense (s)he is banned. No sense of context, no even hand, capricious acts of destruction, give the guardian a bad name. Thus an instutution of potentially great global signifigance is whittled down to a shadow of it's potential. If only the Guardian would take moderation seriously, we might expect great things from their 'talkboards'. Wblakesx

I'd like to expand on the infamously dodgy moderation, but don't know how to without appearing biased or whiny. Any ideas? --Vodex 01:01, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I notice constant reference to ModeratorS, to the best of my knowledge (and this was confirmed a few years ago by a job advert for the post), there is only one talk moderator at any one time. --Charlesknight (formerly monarch before I got very bored and in a night of fun got banned for posting whatever thread titles that people wanted). 18:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maturing content

Once the current flurry of editing dies down (hello Havenites), this is going to need some serious editing, NPOVing and generally making more like an encyclopaedia article and less like a GU talk fansite. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:50, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I suspected we'd get a lot of vandalism, but we're also getting a lot of good raw matter that couldn't be produced by us dust-smelling academics alone - even if we dohave to contend with them pesky gaymo gags being slipped in.

--Vodex 19:45, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

"There is a strong focus on controversial international issues, and in particular there is a lot of erudite, well-informed and civilised debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". Whoever wrote this has his or her tongue firmly in cheek. Jhobson1 (talk) 13:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other

[pgb] Shouldn't there be some mention of the constant bickering re religion and atheism in the issues folder - it's an reasonably settled aspect of the GUT culture, something that partly characterised it imho?

Yep, I'll add. --Vodex 19:45, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

The Barefoot Doctor's use of the title "Doctor" is unwarranted. Does he have a degree in medicine or PhD? Not sure why this has been edited to remove this "POV".

Because it is POV. I agree that he's an idiot, but that is my opinion. MyNameIsClare talk 21:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed changes

OK, now this has settled down, here are a few proposed changes. Comments from current GUtalkers welcome (I haven't been a regular there for a couple of years):

1. Is "capitalist money madness" really all that noteworthy? I'd suggest just deleting it.
2. Ditto Genoa.
3. The section on "moderation" needs to be cut down a little - it's a bit bloated.
4. The first three bullet points under "Folklore and traditions", on threads and crashes, could be merged into one, and the stuff on the Great Crashes cut down if there hasn't been one for three years.
5. The section about GU meets should be merged with the shag-chart (if, indeed, the latter deserves a mention at all).
6. The "swears" section should be cut down to no more than a couple of sentences.
7. There is nothing at all about the other talkboards - FilmTalk, SocietyTalk, etc - they should at least be mentioned.

Thoughts? --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Capitalist Money Madness is certainly a very prominent part of the UK News folder - there are currently 10 of the threads there, several of them with hundreds of posts. But then there are a lot of prominent things on GU... MyNameIsClare talk 17:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The other point about Capitalist Money Madness AFAIK those numbers at the end are real, 5000+ would seem to make it pretty prominent. --Charlesknight 17:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

87.80.208.58

Are you all just lurkers or reglar GUTalk posters? BTW, why is this Wiki entry mostly Haven-focused?

--badnewswade--: Capitalist Money Madness is grate, don't you dare change it!

Do you think this site should link to Guardian Unlimited talk on Wikipedia as that redirects to the GU page. Also should there be a mention of Guardian America, as it is part of GU Smallbig 07:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

Guardian Unlimited was created in 1999, not 1998 as a change by 206.64.224.127 stated. Looking at Archive.org [1] pages are shown as early as 1996, but not under the GU name. The Guardian history timeline also confirms this. [2] AL2 11:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] hoib

I see Reverred and remembered ex-posters has been removed, but since hoib's obit made the main paper, maybe worth a short paragraph about him?

[edit] I agree

Er.. I agree :P but I'm not knowledgable enough to even be bold and start something.--Vodex 21:11, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

How about a "dead posters" section? There's one or two now. It seems fitting, in a way, given how ephemeral the boards are. Or perhaps their ephemeral nature is their value.

[edit] Where are the wings

I've used the GU talk pages since 2000 and never heard it referred to as Where are the Wings. I think this is bollocks. I won't remove it though unless someone else agrees. --Wikipediatastic 14:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree! I have never heard it reffered to with that name. I will remove that in 7 days if no one disagrees Smallbig 07:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Design

I added the fact, that GU changed its design in May 2007. Can please somebody make a new screenshot (my screen has only 14") of the GU frontpage and put the "old" one to somewhere else in the article? thx Anschub 17:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Er... "Since May 2007, "Guardian Unlimited" has begun a gradual process of changing its design, starting with the front page" It actually started with the whole of the travel subsection http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel and in November 2006. Calmeilles 14:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No longer "Unlimited", so rename article?

I've noticed that the "Unlimited" seems to have disappeared from the Guardian site, and it now seems to be only called "guardian.co.uk". So should the article now be renamed "guardian.co.uk"? Also, the initial "g" appears to be always lower case as per this (even at the start of a sentence), so the {{lowercase}} tag should be used if it is to be renamed.--81.157.176.42 (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I also noticed this change the other day and wondered about renaming the article, but it seems like some parts of the site still refer to it as Guaridan Unlimited, including the About/Info page linked-to at the bottom, and also the pages you see when you log into the site. I would guess that maybe it's just taking a while before the whole site changes over, but maybe we should give it some time and see. If not, I've no huge objection to the renaming of the article. --roddie digital (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Should mention that the website seems to have more "unable to access" moments than other such. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems the site is definitely changing over (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/inside/2008/02/changes_to_the_guardian_websit.html), so looks like the Wikipedia article should be changed accordingly. Probably the same thing that's causing your "unable to access" moments too, Jackiespeel. --roddie digital (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that link clinches it for me. --217.44.208.239 (talk) 06:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC) (a.k.a. 81.157.176.42)

[edit] Requested move