Talk:TheGuardian.com

Notability of Talk

Just want to raise something: GU Talk is clearly decreasingly important to guardian.co.uk as time goes on. It's not in the navigation and the links on the front page don't work, and haven't for some time. There are no longer links to talkboards started by Guardian staff, indeed it's a long time since I saw any talkboards by guardian staff. I wonder if it should be spun off from the main guardian.co.uk entry or severely edited, if not deleted from the entry altogether. Also suggest bringing Comment is Free into this entry as it seems to have replaced talk in the hearts of the Guardian staff. Douglasi (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Have also just noticed that Talk hasn't been included in the supposedly now complete redesign of guardian.co.uk, which I think is further evidence of its irrelevance to the rest of the network. Douglasi (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

84.203.54.190 (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm aurprised that ther eseems to be no mention in the article of Guardian Talk (as in guardian.co.uk/talk) at all anymore. Surely it warrants a mention or two?

84.203.54.190 (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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?

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.

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)

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)

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)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as there is no consensus to keep page at the current name. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Guardian Unlimited → guardian.co.uk — The site has been rebranded. —roddie digital (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Actually, Roddie, is there any point now having a survey? Looking again this morning it now looks overwhelmingly obvious that it should be renamed as per your request. The only barrier is that there is a redirect page guardian.co.uk which is sitting in the way, but I believe there's a speedy delete option that caters for this.--217.44.208.239 (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's need for a survey, it just came with the template. While I was tempted to just get it changed over, I figured it was still potentially a controversial move with some parts of the site still going by the old name, such as the blogs and the forum, and I just wanted to give the chance for a bit of discussion before having it moved. I requested help from someone higher up and they seemed to consider it the correct type of requested move. My main concern is how the site should be referred to in parts of the article that discuss events from the past, and I'm also a bit worried that Guardian America becoming guardianamerica (seperated by font colour on the website) looks somewhat untidy on Wikipedia when it is written all in black. It's not that big an article so I think that giving it a couple of days before changing over shouldn't really be a problem. --roddie digital (talk) 13:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I've put in the request to have the page moved to coincide with the site's name change. --roddie digital (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I've started making the proposed changes on User:Roddie_Digital/Guardian_Unlimited so that they can be copied over. Any input is welcome. --roddie digital (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the title of the page doesn't have to be the "official" name. I understand that it's better to name the article after what people would know it as -- so "Guardian Website" might be appropriate. Also, "Guardian America" should probably stay named as it is. This is how I understand WP:NC. Sam Staton (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The page should not be at the official name but "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." (WP:NC) In this case it does not seem to make much difference, as there is no obvious common usage and using the official name does make it easier to write the introduction. Further as there has been no support for keeping the page at the current name I'am moving it. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)