Talk:Shacknews

Recommend for Deletion

Shacknews is no longer a driving force in the gaming community. The site is essentially a chat forum, and most of that doesn't pertain to games at all. I recommend deletion from Wikipedia. Whose with me?

• Hmm, what leads you to that conclusion? Shacknews seems as respectable (if not more so) as it always has been, as far as I can tell. Crummy 21:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Are you kidding me? Do you have something against Shacknews? It gets millions of hits a month and has a very hard core community. There's no reason to delete it. Ecks 02:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, but you have to admit, the main people who used to run it really don't do much with it anymore. Maarten just does his brief and sometimes pointless updates in the morning (and not much else goes on for the rest of the day), Steve doesn't even bother showing up, and Remo (arrogant arse that he is) runs his ass off doing everything else.

• Uh, that's not really the case at all. Maarten is quite active in the comments and does the main page updates every morning including all of the tech reviews, most of the main stories, and does some of the back end. Steve not showing up is ridiculous considering he makes a post every weekday evening and runs the site in general. It sounds more like you have something against Shacknews than you having a problem with the wiki entry (especially because of the Remo remark). Ecks 11:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Um, you apparently don't look at the front news page often, which isn't why you go to the Shack, I understand. It's a chatty site. Maarten makes the obligatory news posts in the morning, then not much is added after that. As for being involved in the comments section. Whoop-de-doo, that's not all that hard to spend time in convos. Steve makes - and you said it - two (two??) posts per day and practically never shows up in the forums or answers email? Bleh, I don't have something against The Shack itself, it's just this Wiki is waaay tooo biiiig for the site.

• So if it's too big, why not talk about editing it down instead of deleting it? The wiki as itself obviously has merit considering the size of Shacknews. Ecks 02:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm recommending you for deletion. 71.166.47.118 14:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Create a wiki for him, then delete him. 'tardbasket.

Abbreviations

Guys I wonder if we should include stuff that applies to all message boards, stuff like IAWTP and TL;DR, Comedy Gold, etc aren't specific to the shack.. unlike shacktags, shacker, etc.

HWM might be appropraite, Hot Wet Maarten.

But since I'm not one to delete content I'll just put it in talk and hope that someone notices :) Celerityfm 03:26, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

IAWTP Lydgate 04:04, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

OMG, self-referential comment humor in cyberspace, my head-isgoing-to--EXPLODE!!!! :P Ok for now I'll just add a little disclaimer that some of these abbreviations can be found on many other internet message boards and that their origins (unless otherwise noted) are generally unknown. Unless sir Lydgate you think the non-specific shack stuff should be removed. I defer to you since you had the balls to create this entry in the first place :P Celerityfm 04:37, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I say it's fine for now, but we should plan to phase it out as we get more shack-specific content. Sound good? Lydgate 05:06, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

Sounds great! Tomorrow someone should take off the VFD link and move the VFD Discussion to the shacknews talk page or into the vfd archive. And where did the goatse reference go? :P (I'm glad its gone tho, I just find it humorous that it was even on there in the first place haha!) Celerityfm 17:51, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ok, took off acronyms as you can see, since it didn't seem that relevant. Same with goatse example--I mean, it is nukeable, but not really worth mentioning. We should wait at least a few days to remove the VFD link, I think it says to leave it there for a few days just in case (I was thinking about doing that too). If you have a sec, maybe repost to shack to get other people to contribute? There are thousands of shackers, I'm sure other people are interested. We should get some stuff up about significant traditions or things that have been popularized by the shack, but not just generic internet phrases. Lydgate 17:58, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

IAWTP :P Good idea on a repost-- I'll see if I can drum up any more interest in tomorrow's First Post.. maybe I'll tie in a note about just what wikipedia is exactly since I think it might be new to a lot of people. When people understand what wikipedia is for the first time they tend to get excited and want to contribute :) Celerityfm 03:40, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

I think we should probably make it more non-POV by adding some information about squabble, etc, and some info about the controversial modding policies, etc. I don't know enough about them to bang out something worthwhile.We should probably aim to turn it into something more than just a "OMG, teh shack is teh best!1!1!" page. Maybe with a seperate section on shackbattles, and about the steam beta, and other shack specials. --Gregb 20:57, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Good stuff Gregb! I agree about making it less POV and in addition to squabble we should talk about official shack related sites (like Hard-OCP)-- kinda like how you've broken up the external links into official/non-official. As far as "controversial modding policies" I think a brief discussion on the evolution of the comments community would be really worthwhile. Perhaps also a note about shackers in real life and the whole semi-official lamp? sand lime greeting. Hopefully I'll get inspired soon and do some writing!Celerityfm 03:18, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Votes for deletion - Archive

I took us off of the VFD page. I think its time to move on and become a permanent part of the Wikipedia! Congratulations Shacknews wikipedia editing crew!

I'm archiving the discussion to delete the page here for posterity. What follows is the archive of the debate:

------ ARCHIVE BEGINS ------

Is this website encyclopaedia-worthy? It's not the sort of site I would frequent, so I'm not sure. - Lee (talk) 22:13, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• I was suspicious, but shacknews gets over 300,000 hits. Niteowlneils 22:23, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• I'm a bit biased (having contributed to it a few times already), but it does have over 1000 users visiting the site at any given time, has already been involved in a few internet infamys (specifically the LOTR: Two Towers petition) and is one of the most highly respected gaming sites out there, if not the most highly respected. --Gregb 22:27, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Alexa traffic rank of 13,063. Seems to be notable enough, although the article is more about their message board software than the site itself. -- Cyrius|&#9998 22:54, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
• If SomethingAwful and Slashdot get their own entries, so should Shacknews. I'm not a wikipedia user, so I've got no lovely tag line. -- 23:06, Apr 12, 2004
• It depends on whther or not you think that other sites, such as SomethingAwful or Slashdot, deserve encyclopedia entries. Each has its unique merits and traits. None of them are really important in any sense; I don't think I would buy a paper encyclopedia with "Something Awful" and "Shacknews" entries. But these might be appropriate for an online encyclopedia.
• I'm biased too, since I started the page, but I would like to agree that this is not the sort of thing that belongs in a paper encyclopedia. However, I have often used Wikipedia for unbiased information about internet trends. Once something becomes popular on the internet, it can become very difficult to find meaningful information about the phrase itself without ridicule. Google certainly does no help. Therefore I think that articles about such sites as SomethingAwful and Shacknews, which are often at the heart of such trends, are informative and necessary for an online encyclopedia. Lydgate 23:22, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
• Okay, I'll buy that it's significant. But the article as it stands still reads more like advice for someone wanting to join than an encyclopaedia article. There's no mention of the site's significance in the article (what was the Two Towers petition about? Is it worth mentioning?). - Lee (talk) 23:50, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• It's the "slashdot of games" page. The comments section is 90% of the website, much like slashdot. Shacknews does twice-daily "chatty" posts where people can discuss whatever they'd like.
• I've updated the entry with more information about the site and did my best to wikify it. I think you'll find it more fitting now Lee. Celerityfm 03:44, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Change it to an article style or nuke it. The current page is just a fanboy rant.
• If goatse gets an entry, then the Shack deserves one, nuff said!
• Oh, go on then, I know when I'm beat. I withdraw my nomination. My apologies to the many fine members of Shacknews. - Lee (talk) 10:32, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - original vfd poster withdrew nomination. Celerityfm 14:16, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

------ ARCHIVE ENDS ------

Celerityfm 20:44, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Deletion from The Comments Section

Removed "The moderation staff is also openly partial to posting regulars, often moderating non-regulars more harshly. Game development company employees are also given partiality, including moderator status, in order to facilitate "scooping" other news sites in relation to video game news.".

This is a personal point of view. It is an opinion, not a fact. See Weasel words and NPOV. sikander 19:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This does occur; it's just harder than hell to conclusively call a mod out on it.

Though it's hard to prove, I agree that moderation is pretty biased. I think an inclusion or mention is noteworthy. - 130.113.198.104 17:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, WP:AWW, WP:NOR. --Phorteetoo 18:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

User 68.57.158.115

Please be aware than further addition of your personal point of view in the 'Comments' section will result in an IP Block. Your additions has been removed six times now by two different people. Sadly all requests for discussion have been ignored. Please see Weasel words and NPOV. In any case, any futher addition of the same sentence that you've been repeatedly adding to the article will result in an IP block. sikander 19:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

A few small updates

I made a few small changes to make sentences a bit less muddled and improve a few small grammatical errors, as well as making one or two sentences more in line with the NPOV guidelines of Wikipedia. Nothing major. BTW, this is ColoradoCNC, I'm just too lazy to make a wiki account.

Thanks. sikander 03:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Leaked message board links

It is in poor taste to link to a leaked archive of a private messageboard, not to mention the possible copyright ramifications that can arise from doing so. Since Wikiepedia explicitly states that "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted", that portion should be removed (especially since it was most certainly not intended to be public, and presumably illegaly obtained). Trypsin24 00:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Instead of having the same passage be added/deleted/added/deleted forever and ever (amen) I edited a more NPOV version of the offending paragraph. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.251.90.34 (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC).