Talk:Dotmusic

I'm sure you have your reasons for hating Moopy, but frankly, the dot-lite part of Dotmusic was the busiest part of the former Dot forums, and as Moopy is something of a successor to this part of the Dot forums, I thought it appropriate they should be top of the list. Besides, why are you arguing over the order the names are on the list? ChartClarity doesn't belong on this list, as it is NOT a Dotmusic offshoot.

ChartClarity is NOT the only place to find chart positions 41-80, and I wouldnt brag too loudly about the midweeks that all these sites get as often as you. If you are so self-important that you are so enraged by not having a link on a barely-seen Wikipedia page, then by all means, start your own page. Diddy

Can I just add, I'm nothing to do with Moopy, I'm the admin for Chart Refugees. This is a really pointless argument, I don't understand why you want to tack your name onto this list. The Coolclarity Admin (name?) said a few weeks ago when CC closed that it was never a Dotmusic off-shoot, which we all knew to be the truth from the start. My advice is to do another ChartClarity entry, you have as much right to representation or whatever it is you are looking for on Wikipedia, but this is not the place. Diddy.

I'm not saying it's fair .. isn't there something to protect against this sort of thing on Wikipedia? Diddy

Dotmusic is notable as one of the first major music-based internet sites; the fact that it has spawned so many offshoots actually adds to its notability - had its members just folded up and disappeared, things may have been different. However, to have separate entries for each of these would be unneccesary unless you could show that the sites had become notable in their own right - neither the (unauthorised?) archiving of copyrighted chart information nor Moopy's notoriously gladiatorial atmosphere achieves this. Ac@osr 17:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I have just added four sites to the external site links. These are: SBUK's forum, Haven, The Dot Refugee Network, and the Dotmusic archives.

The Dotmusic archives only recently became known to me, and I think that these snapshots of dotmusic's past make a valuable addition to this article.

As for the other links, I added them before, and they had been deleted. In the case of SBUK and Haven, it is grossly unfair that such action was taken, as their claim to be 'dot-refugee' sites is every bit as strong as any of the other sites listed, a fact which I have never seen disputed by even their harshest critics.

In the case of the network, though its presence seems to have alarmed some people who weren't aware of its existence until its recent relaunch, it has infact been around almost since the original forums closed. As the only site containing links and updated information on all the forums in the network, it has an important part to play in the ongoing story of the dotmusic communities, and I feel it deserves a place here.

Jimmy/Lucky Guy/Simon -Dot. network administrator

I am increasingly of the view that only the archive site should be listed in the links section as none of the other have any formal connection to Dotmusic, except that they house people who formerly made use of part of the Dotmusic site. Bear in mind that Yahoo still uses the name Dotmusic within the Launch site (or did the last time I checked). Ac@osr 17:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Yahoo and Cool Clarity should be added to the list too...Does CC want to be a member of the Dot. Refugees Network? A big(ger) site like CC will probably help the network while the network would surely bring new members to CC. It could be a win-win situation with no silly arguments...Yahoo could in my opinion go in the same area as the Archive link...for the Dotmusic news pages.

CENTRAL - Dotugee TV administrator/Dot. network fan

Aren't you really missing the point with CC, being one of the offshoot forums is one of those things that you were either one of them, or you weren't, it's not really something you join later on. I'm glad Haven and SBuk are back, I'm not sure why they were deleted really.

I am perilously close to taking this site to AfD or, at the very least, removing all the post-forums material and suggesting a merge or redirect to Yahoo. Ac@osr 23:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Notability

The notability of the subject is currently unclear, since no sources are cited. By the notability criteria for web content, multiple independent reliable sources are required to make sure that this web site is notable. These sources might be independent review, press articles or books, for example, which cover the web site in detail. Please cite such sources in the article in order to avoid deletion.

For the time being, I am replacing the “importance” tag with “notability”. Sorted as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 07:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dotmusic. 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://web.archive.org/web/20080724150910/http://www.webuser.co.uk/products/Dotmusic_on_Demand_review_1626-212.html to http://www.webuser.co.uk/products/Dotmusic_on_Demand_review_1626-212.html

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

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) 02:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)