Talk:Digital DawgPound

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Computing (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Computer Security / Computing  (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Low-importance).
 

Request for additional references[edit]

To improve the quality of this article, could some sources please be added that are external to the DDP, that talk about it? Has it ever been mentioned in a newspaper or magazine? Or someone else's podcast? --Elonka 16:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Works[edit]

I'd like to see the "Works" section thinned out to be representative, rather than comprehensive. I'm sure that there's a list of all works on the BinRev site -- we can link to that one. Also, there's no need to list works of writers such as StankDawg and Strom Carlson here on this page, since they already have their own pages. --Elonka 17:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair warning:[edit]

Pretty much everything "notable" in this article is covered elsewhere. If this article isn't improved with some sourced assertion of notability that is more than "forum posts from Mark Abene and founded by someone who got articles in 2600", I'm going to AfD it, and it is unlikely to survive.

--- tqbf 16:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd vote "delete". If there's going to be an article about BinRev, it should be under "Binary Revolution," not DDP. The DDP is a very small group of people, while Binrev is the whole community. Like I said before in another thread, I think the Binrev Radio (aka DDP HackRadio) topic should be amalgamated with the (soon to be created) Binrev page. --Othtim (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I would bring up that the Digital DawgPound created binrev and that should be one more thing that makes them notable and verifiable. Saying that it does not is like saying that the cotton gin is notable but its inventor, Eli Whitney, is not. In an encyclopedia (which wikipedia is, lest everyone forget that), you need all related data to make a complete and thorough entry. Even "one-hit wonders" in the music have notability as a "one hit wonder" and their names are notable as such. If the DDP is a one-hit wonder, so be it, but I do not believe that they are nor do i believe that they should be deleted. Bad Monk3y 04:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
So by your logic, we need not only Modern English (band), but also Robbie Grey, Gary McDowell, Richard Brown, and Mick Conroy, as well as Mesh And Lace, the album that I Melt with You appeared on. Awesome. --- tqbf 05:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I would argue that a HIT SONG by that band justifies the BAND itself having an entry. To apply that logic here and spell it out for you, I am not justifying that every member of the DDP have an entry. I am justifying the group entry itself. There is only one member of the group (StankDawg) that has a page of his own (just like 2 of your band members have pages of their own). Your band metaphor is what is "awesome". Bad Monk3y 06:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
To merit a WP article, a topic must be notable. Topics are notable when written about in reliable secondary sources. The only sources that appear to have even mentioned this topic are forum posts and blogs, and then only in passing, when discussing specific people who already have WP articles. I'm going to ask, since this is the only topic you've contributed to on WP, ever, over many months: do you have an interest in DDP that you should disclose? If you don't, I apologize for being so forward. --- tqbf 07:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course he has an interest. All three of us do. Also, DDP isn't notable! No one writes about the DDP. You can't trump WP:V. If you want to make this site stick, find some evidence of WP:V. Something where DDP is credited. DDP, not david blake, not lucky225, not whomever. DDP. The problem with the "band metaphor" is that it's usually the bands that are popular *first*, not the other way around. The bands are popular, then the people *in* the band are popular. In that order. Not so with DDP. Also, Eli Whitney and the DDP are not on the same level. You can look all around you find secondary sources about Eli Whitney. Not so with DDP. --Othtim 10:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Othtim is doing a much better job of explaining my position than I am. I apologize if I'm being too tactless about this. --- tqbf 18:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Digital DawgPound. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 01:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Digital DawgPound. 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:

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

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 21:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)