This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I have archived the old discussion page. You can find it at /Archive1. Isopropyl 16:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I added the tag to this section noting it is unreferenced. It certainly makes sense but it shouldn't be in the article unless verified by references. I'll leave it here for a while but if no references are forthcoming I'll delete the section. -- ElKevbo 14:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
not that slashdot would be doing any promo..but having the slashdot banner above other links on the right hand side of the page makes it look like this wikipedia page is hosted by them or something. It looks like "here's how you can get to know us" rather than "this is some information on slashdot" ... the latter more desirable of course. 69.249.57.34 01:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Removed the external link to seenonslash dot com, a site which simply copies comments off slashdot and shows advertisments with them. Good idea for making a profit but it doesn't really add anything.
I removed the link because I disagree with you on it's relevance.
Here's my take on the site:
1. Bits of news are posted
2. It's got comments
3. It's based on slashcode
While those points are indeed shared with /., 1 and 2 also fit most news sites and blogs, and 3 fits a lot of them too.
And while the other sites listed are somewhat tech-related or has some connection with /., christdot is totally unrelated except for the pun on the name.
So to conclude; I see it as non-relevant and non-notable.
The list of relevant similar sites seems to me to be just big enough to be doing it's purpose without listing every site under the sun.
Also, are you the owner of the site? If so, are you adding the link simply to increase your readership? -- Nnp 20:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I see it's a php-nuke site, my bad. My point still stands though. -- Nnp 20:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, it's been suggested that Christdot be merged into this article. -- Nnp 08:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Are there any objections to pruning down this section? It's pointlessly huge. // Nnp 22:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
yes objection; this has to do with the encyclopedia as opposed to dictionary role of wiki; broadening ones horizons is good. The very superior quality of formatting (/. is pleasing to the eye) while a matter of opinion, should be noted
It doesn't make any sense for there to be a paragraph in the middle of this article's header devoted to random annoyances people have with the site, especially when those annoyances are again listed later on in the article. I deleted the portion of the top section, the criticism section is still there in all it's glory. -- relaxathon 17:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Why did Slashdot change its UI? And how do I change it back to the old form? I can't find any announcements on the Slashdot page itself about this. -- Zemyla t 23:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Not being a regular editor at this article i thought it'd be best to post a content request here instead of editing the main article and probably screwing it up ;) Can we please go into the criticism regarding the 'tags' system and how horribly some articles have been tagged. It might only be me but when i see articles (particually non-100% US based) tagged 'whocares' or some other smartassed remark it makes me very angry, and i think it should deserve at least a small section in the criticism section. Other tags are the 'yes','no','maybe' tags (These are article tags, not opinion polls!), 'stupid', 'haha' and 'pwned' tags (How do these serve any purpose except as a way for users to make a biased and generally unuseful personal opinion?). I'd really appreciate if someone could take the time to give it a mention, i understand the tags system has yet to be fully implementated but it can annoy me, and i'ma assuming others, to no end (particually the US-Centric opinions and spelling). Thanks a lot -Benbread 10:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I was just wondering why there isn't a April Fools section or similar in this article. Slashdot generally partakes with funny snippets of news from the opposite realm of geekdom on April 1st, and having a screenshot of the Pink April 1st Slashdot from this year would greatly add to this articles value. I found one and uploaded: slashdot.org April 1, 2006 Would a new section be prudent? I am already aware of April 1, 2006 (Complete List) where this information was originally linked. -- Solarisworld 07:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Regarding [1]: please don't nitpick. I think the Slashdot FAQ would be a reliable source for the site's namesake. Isopropyl 06:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The neutrality of this article has been compromised by the use of weasel words. The use of "#<section>" is where the offending material appears in the article. Below is a list of some of them:
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I have archived the old discussion page. You can find it at /Archive1. Isopropyl 16:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I added the tag to this section noting it is unreferenced. It certainly makes sense but it shouldn't be in the article unless verified by references. I'll leave it here for a while but if no references are forthcoming I'll delete the section. -- ElKevbo 14:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
not that slashdot would be doing any promo..but having the slashdot banner above other links on the right hand side of the page makes it look like this wikipedia page is hosted by them or something. It looks like "here's how you can get to know us" rather than "this is some information on slashdot" ... the latter more desirable of course. 69.249.57.34 01:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Removed the external link to seenonslash dot com, a site which simply copies comments off slashdot and shows advertisments with them. Good idea for making a profit but it doesn't really add anything.
I removed the link because I disagree with you on it's relevance.
Here's my take on the site:
1. Bits of news are posted
2. It's got comments
3. It's based on slashcode
While those points are indeed shared with /., 1 and 2 also fit most news sites and blogs, and 3 fits a lot of them too.
And while the other sites listed are somewhat tech-related or has some connection with /., christdot is totally unrelated except for the pun on the name.
So to conclude; I see it as non-relevant and non-notable.
The list of relevant similar sites seems to me to be just big enough to be doing it's purpose without listing every site under the sun.
Also, are you the owner of the site? If so, are you adding the link simply to increase your readership? -- Nnp 20:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I see it's a php-nuke site, my bad. My point still stands though. -- Nnp 20:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, it's been suggested that Christdot be merged into this article. -- Nnp 08:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Are there any objections to pruning down this section? It's pointlessly huge. // Nnp 22:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
yes objection; this has to do with the encyclopedia as opposed to dictionary role of wiki; broadening ones horizons is good. The very superior quality of formatting (/. is pleasing to the eye) while a matter of opinion, should be noted
It doesn't make any sense for there to be a paragraph in the middle of this article's header devoted to random annoyances people have with the site, especially when those annoyances are again listed later on in the article. I deleted the portion of the top section, the criticism section is still there in all it's glory. -- relaxathon 17:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Why did Slashdot change its UI? And how do I change it back to the old form? I can't find any announcements on the Slashdot page itself about this. -- Zemyla t 23:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Not being a regular editor at this article i thought it'd be best to post a content request here instead of editing the main article and probably screwing it up ;) Can we please go into the criticism regarding the 'tags' system and how horribly some articles have been tagged. It might only be me but when i see articles (particually non-100% US based) tagged 'whocares' or some other smartassed remark it makes me very angry, and i think it should deserve at least a small section in the criticism section. Other tags are the 'yes','no','maybe' tags (These are article tags, not opinion polls!), 'stupid', 'haha' and 'pwned' tags (How do these serve any purpose except as a way for users to make a biased and generally unuseful personal opinion?). I'd really appreciate if someone could take the time to give it a mention, i understand the tags system has yet to be fully implementated but it can annoy me, and i'ma assuming others, to no end (particually the US-Centric opinions and spelling). Thanks a lot -Benbread 10:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I was just wondering why there isn't a April Fools section or similar in this article. Slashdot generally partakes with funny snippets of news from the opposite realm of geekdom on April 1st, and having a screenshot of the Pink April 1st Slashdot from this year would greatly add to this articles value. I found one and uploaded: slashdot.org April 1, 2006 Would a new section be prudent? I am already aware of April 1, 2006 (Complete List) where this information was originally linked. -- Solarisworld 07:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Regarding [1]: please don't nitpick. I think the Slashdot FAQ would be a reliable source for the site's namesake. Isopropyl 06:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The neutrality of this article has been compromised by the use of weasel words. The use of "#<section>" is where the offending material appears in the article. Below is a list of some of them: