Talk:rabble.ca

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 November 2020. The result of the discussion was keep.

Canada Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Websites: Computing Low‑importance

	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.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Untitled

Is there a reason the paragraph about the firing of Audra Williams is repeatedly deleted from the entry? It's all public record. 199.126.22.116 (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash^talk 01:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues:

Firstly, where is the template that is supposed to be on this talk page that announces this debate has been held?
Secondly, the debate appears to have been a joke. Don't the WP guidelines state that in order for a website to be considered notable, it has to be the subject of multiple mentions in the press? I don't see reference to a single mention in this article, and every footnote is self-referential. The website is wholly non-notable from that perspective. So on what grounds is this notable? The entire notability debate centred around the notion that the recommendation for deletion was in bad faith but apparently, no one could be arsed to see if they had a point or not.139.48.25.60 (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"(reverted vandalism)"

rabble makes the following claim: The site receives roughly 300,000 unique visitors a month.

I wrote the following statement, which I believe to be true and worthy of a response: (I seriously question this figure.)

Spylab chose to delete it as (reverted vandalism).

I take exception to this.

You can't write stuff like "I question this fact" in a Wikipedia article. That's not the way it works. You can insert ^{[citation needed]} if you you want proof of a statement. Spylab 12:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Spylab[reply]

Thank you for the advice.

"Unique" visitors?

Why does it say "unique" visitors? I would even question substituting that with "open-minded" or the like...neutrality ppl! -unsigned

The word "unique" is a technical term related to how Internet visitors are counted. It has nothing to do with the personalities of the people who visit the site. Spylab 15:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also an unattainable meausurement standard as far as internet sites go.139.48.25.60 (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify - how would the site know who is a "unique" visitor? Even if the site identified 300,000 different IP hits on the site, that doesn't mean those are people visiting or making use of the content, as opposed to automated bots, or repeat visitors (say, someone visiting from work during the day, then from at home at night). There is simply no way to know what those 300,000 IP hits represent. The statistics can't be used to support a claim that 300,000 unique visitors are using the site, unless they are actually logging in by name to the site. And even then, unless they're verifying their identities by credit card/email, there is still no way of weeding out multiple personalities. The statement can't be verified, and especially not since it comes from the site's very own "about us" page. Ridiculous. Has this article passed a recommendation for deletion yet on the grounds on non-notability? If so, where is the template that is supposed to be on this page?139.48.25.60 (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edits I just made...

I just wanted to leave a note here explaining a few things in my recent edit [1]

I changed "RabbleTv" and "Babble" to "rabbletv" and "babble", respectively, because that's how they are spelled at rabble.ca.
I cut out a couple of direct quotes to avoid using rabble's somewhat promotional language - for example, we don't need the description “an interactive space where rabble-rousers mix, mingle and mix it up, whether it's to comment on an article, post your own version of events, to follow breaking news or join in rule-breaking discussion" in the lede, it's enough there to say that rabble's message board is babble.

I think my edits were fairly standard and unlikely to cause controversy, but feel free to disabuse me of that notion if I'm way off base here - that's (approximately) what the talk page is for. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Toronto supported by WikiProject Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]