Talk:Home of the Underdogs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Websites / Computing   
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
 

The new site[edit]

So it's gone for good? What a shame. Many happy memories. 2fort5r (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The new HotU site is up at www.hotud.org. It isn't created and owned by Sarinee Achavanuntakul anymore. Should the new site deserve a new article?
Well, may be not, but I think it should have a new section with new Infobox Website template, to differentiate between the old one-woman operated site and the new community-based site.
An example is to the right. But let's wait until the new site is fully online (with new design finished and downloads available) to deal wit it.
-- DTRY (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Does the new site feature both "genres" and "themes" as searchable categories? That was a useful feature of the old one. --70.142.53.178 (talk) 03:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
The article doesn't explain at all what's the difference from the other new "official site" (other than actually looking like the old site). -82.81.228.66 (talk) 11:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Hotud.org has disappeared —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.252.188 (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
It's alive and kicking and has been for months. Lord Pall (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Since the original site is officially gone, should we list this as a dead site? Sarinee gave an interview about the original and mentions the revivals - http://www.reviewwithextremeprejudice.com/?page_id=49 . Of the revivals, only hotud.org is updated, the rest haven't been touched for months. Is this pertinent? Lord Pall (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

URL[edit]

Since there seems to be a discrete edit war, I have changed the URL to that of the discussion group, as none of the "sites" seem to be 'official'/'final'/whatnot. If you would like to change this, it would be appreciated (not just by me) if you could please post here why one site should be included and other sites not. Miscreant (talk) 07:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

None should be included. We do not include advocacy or revival links and portray them as official. The only choice here is whether to just link the dead website or to use a {{wayback}} link to point at an archived version. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking. I posted at the VG project for help on this page, but noone seemed to care. Of course, if reliable sources start to talk about the various revivals, that would be fine, but as it stands now noone's put any proof that any of the websites are any different from a fansite, in a sense. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
What bothers me is none of these sites mention that they are revivals or fan sites and simply use the content without providing credit for its origin. So although it's nice people went through the trouble of preserving this, and the situation is a little odd, this is disheartening. Philipolson (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Mind you, Sarinee released the site's database under a GPL. --83.238.215.31 (talk) 09:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually it was Creative Commons.Lord Pall (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

URL History[edit]

This is some URL history according to Waybackmachine evidence.

  • theunderdogs.org: From 2000-04-08 [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martiniturbide (talkcontribs) 20:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • the-underdogs.org: From 2002-04-02 to 2006-03-15 [2]
  • the-underdogs.info: From 2006-04-26 to 2009-01-15 [3]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Home of the Underdogs. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Status of HotU[edit]

I have checked and Hotud.org is not existant anymore. Therefore www.HomeOfTheUnderdogs.net is the only one is extistence. Shouldn't the description reflect it? I mean there are no "multiple revival sites" anymore, just one...

In addition, what's the source of information that the site is defunct? The founder, Sarinee Achavanuntakul, clearly gave the right to continue it to the community. She created the revival project for this purpose which succeeded. It does not make sense to call it defunct nowadays, not when there are regular updates and an active community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GamerInfo (talkcontribs) 16:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)