The wikipedia noobs do it again

Message

Discombobulator · September 23rd, 2006, 1:57 pm

They've nominated the EotA entry for deletion once again.

Hammel · #2 Post by **Hammel** » September 24th, 2006, 4:52 am

We've got the best entry for any WC3-Map and they just wanna delete it... NOOBS... -.-

Btw: When there are so many people against EotA on wikipedia, EotA must be very well known...

-Ham

#3 Post by **Tehw00tz** » September 24th, 2006, 5:14 am

By nominating it to be deleted they are making it more well-known, it's probally some DotA nubs trying to look cool to their clannies or friends or imaginary friends by trying to take down EotA.

Hammel · #4 Post by **Hammel** » September 24th, 2006, 6:36 am

At a time wikipedia entries for any WC3 maps were supposed to be deleted, so I doubt it was some DotA noobs.

-Ham

Ocean.dll · #5 Post by **Ocean.dll** » September 24th, 2006, 10:17 am

Yeah, wiki doesn't like WC3 map entries. They tried to delete the NotD entry and they actually did delete the Enfo's entry. It pissed me off because I actually work on the later and made it look like something that wasn't a piece of shit.

ashwa · #6 Post by **ashwa** » September 24th, 2006, 12:22 pm

can i do something to help the entry?

#7 Post by **Tehw00tz** » September 24th, 2006, 1:38 pm

ashwa wrote:can i do something to help the entry?

You can give me $1,000,000 in small bills...Canadian Bills!<Evil Laugh>

Discombobulator · September 25th, 2006, 11:52 am

Go there and argue. Actually, just post reasons why it should be kept and why it's notable, I'll handle the idiots thinking their abundance of acronyms and policies makes them smarter.

kevin.mentor · September 25th, 2006, 11:04 pm

Dug up the link that I first ran into EotA, from blizzards mod support site. You know, from when getting a map on there meant something.

I didn't post it to wikipedia as the download link still points to the war3modforge.

If someone gets the link updated, then feel free to post it and silence that guy complaining.

http://www.battle.net/mod/halloffame.shtml
Then scroll down, EotA was the second one put there.

Ion · #10 Post by **Ion** » October 30th, 2006, 9:55 pm

Read Wikipedia's guidelines on notability in articles.

We don't meet the standards.

In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that it will be described by multiple independent reliable sources.

We have this site as our resource. =/

In order to have a neutral article with minimal errors, a topic must be notable enough that there will be non-partisan editors interested in editing it.

We have two kinds of people working on our article.

Random pubs, and Clan EotA. And I'm not sure many pubs have been too interested in altering, editing or adding to the article.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of businesses, websites, persons, etc.

It only applies in the sense that we're too small and insignificant to really make an impact on the community. How many people read our outdated Wiki page anyway?

If you want a wiki-page, you need a lot of people to do it. More then just one group of people, more then just one view. At this point in time, we don't have that. So until that comes around, I don't think we should have a wiki-page; not because I don't like EotA, but because we don't comply with their rules and standards. Which is something only we can work on.

And at the moment, it doesn't seem very workable.