Talk:DataLounge

Non-encyclopedic info?

Does anyone else feel the four sub-sections of "Moderation and Rules" is un-encyclopedic? For instance, are there any references (in the real world, from WP:RS) to the sites "Tinhats/Prancing Ponies" section? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

References are needed

This article is desperately in need of references. I'm tempted to stub, as some of the references don't refer to DataLounge at all, just the origins of the jokes they supposedly have. In fact, I'm guessing the majority of the information in this article simply can't be sourced, since it isn't encyclopedic. AniMate 07:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

I was one of the people who worked on this article when it was first created two years ago. Back then I was completely unfamiliar with wikipedia policy. I am not anymore, and this article really is way overdue for a cleanup.

I'm removing several unsourceable sections that deal with living persons and pretty much flies in the face of the WP:Biographies of living persons policy, lacking WP:Reliable sources for WP:Verification.

Removing the "chalupa" section as it deals with unsorceable rumors about living persons. As far as I know no sources that are even close to passing WP:RS exist to verify anything in that section.

Also removing the "tinhat" section. The existence of the lotr rumours has been discussed in some reliable sources, though iI can't find anything in print at the moment, I know at least one of the actors has discussed them on a talk show. But as I recall datalounge has never been mentioned specifically. If these rumours are to be included anywhere on wikipedia (doubtful) it wouldn't be in this article.

Also removing the dakota fanning paragraph. While it is a description of a joke, I still don't think it's be compliant with WP:BLP. If there were reliable sources to assert the importance of this joke to datalounge culture it might be included, but there are none, and it's just one joke among many.

The "Sayings" and "Collaborative characters" sections are original research (though I guess their existence can sort of be verified by searching datalounge itself for each phrase.) But I'm leaving them be for now. They actually do a pretty good job of giving an idea what datalounge is all about, via examples. Siawase (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that they summarize datalounge rather well, but they're unsourceable. If they really were of note, someone would have written about them outside of the message boards. AniMate 21:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Nod. While I personally think the article is more informational with those sections, I recognize that they fly in the face of core policies, and I won't challenge your deletion. Siawase (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This page is in desperate need of clean up. I would like to do that, but because there are huge chunks that would probably require deletion, I don't really want to make those judgment calls and be accused of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.157.104 (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing the "Posters of note" section

There's a mention of David Ehrenstein reading Datalounge here: [1] (also mirrored on his own site: [2]).

Jeannette Walls mentions Datalounge as late as 2008: [3] and has mentioned it in past columns, no longer available online it seems.

In both these cases I don't know if there are sources to assert the narrative of coming and goings from Datalounge as it is presented in the article now.

Neither of the sources used for the Michael Musto paragraph mentions Datalounge, but he has mentioned it several times in past columns. [4]

Unless someone finds better sources, the article here probably needs to be re-written to better reflect what the sources we do have actually say. Siawase (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Too much information

There's way too much stuff on this page for this particular website. It should be concise; it's not like it is some kind of extremely well known forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.1.177 (talk) 23:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is this such a large entry? This is not a particularly noteworthy site and it barely merits even a Wiki entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.198.113 (talk) 06:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me...lots of the details of site policies and speculation isn't cited, so it clearly a good place to start trimming. However, a brief mention that there is some sort of moderation/oversight or topic-restriction is good to keep--that's a factual statement that helps describe how this site fits into the world of other similar sites. Also, any event that is cited to some independent reference should stay. For example, if an interaction with another website or some on-site activity was significant enough to be reported in media, it is (perhaps one of the few!) things that really is notable enough to bother stating. DMacks (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability tag

Lapadite77, can you expand on here why you think it lacks notability? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Boleyn, sorry for the year-late reply. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (web) criteria, such as receiving significant, non-trivial coverage from independent sources. Lapadite (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Lapadite77, you may want to comment at the AfD. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on DataLounge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120730180358/http://www.datalounge.com/cgi-bin/iowa/forum/thread/gossip/3554951/page-6.html to http://www.datalounge.com/cgi-bin/iowa/forum/thread/gossip/3554951/page-6.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.wired.com/news/culture/0%2C1284%2C2355%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060717173248/http://www.datalounge.net/ to http://www.datalounge.net/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311195256/http://crcvms.unl.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9812&L=lmw-l&D=0&T=0&P=3784 to http://crcvms.unl.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9812&L=lmw-l&D=0&T=0&P=3784

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Closed down?

Has DataLounge shut down? It hasn't been active for several days. 2601:241:8102:221C:C9BB:9ABC:CC87:B305 (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Trim

I tried to trim back some of the more boring technical stuff. As others have said, it isn't really relevant or all that interesting. However, not sure if it exists elsewhere? It would be great if someone did a long exploration in an article on the site and its history, and some of this content could be included there. 2603:8001:2A00:7428:4C66:580A:8C74:D18A (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)