Jump to content

Talk:Dogs On Acid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Dogs on acid)

Deletion

[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dogs_on_acid#Dogs_on_acid in case anyone wanted to see

Edited

[edit]

This article has been edited to include references and sources. Including links to DJs names —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayflux (talk • contribs) 12:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take a look at what is required for notability of web sites. The reason I nominated it for deletion is that it has not received any non-trivial coverage by third-party sources which are sources that are independent of the subject. Wperdue (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]

Section removal

[edit]

I removed the self-sourced size claim. It needs a reliable source and, as it stated, it is "not statistically true"". Wperdue (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]

I don't think you understand. I said the forum calls itself the biggest dance forum in the world, I then cited this by pointing you to the website stating "the biggest dance forum." Then i said this is statistically not true, I then sourced this by showing you a site which proved other dance forums have more traffic. I Sourced this correctly, i think you are being lazy and not checking yourself. So I will be re adding this back. You can't tell me these are unreliable sources as you guys use Alexa yourselves.

Please see WP:CIVILITY. Calling me lazy isn't considered civil. I did check the information myself. It's a self-sourced claim of something that they admit is not true. This does not qualify as factual information. I can claim that I am a god, and source it to my own website. It doesn't matter what I or they or you claim. The only thing that matters is what is verifiable using reliable sources that are not self-published. I'll be happy to ask for a third opinion on this. I am removing the part about massive growth as that part is unsourced. Please do not re-add that part until a third opinion is given on this issue. Thank you. Wperdue (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
I have added a request for a third opinion here. Wperdue (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]

Done —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.64.15 (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I ask that you please stop editing this content until a third opinion is given. The link that you added is simply a site that links back to the original site. It doesn't provide any other information. I am trying to go about this in a manner consistent with Wikipedia policy on editing conflicts. Wperdue (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue.[reply]

I understand but it would be quite hard to find somewhere else saying this. They call themselves this hence the self sourced claim. What about http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=The+world%27s+largest+dance+music+forum&btnG=Search&meta=

Also why is it that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drum_and_Bass_Arena is not notable have zero references yet they are completely left alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.64.15 (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about we both let a neutral editor come in here and give their opinion first? I will not be editing anything until then. I would ask you to do the same, but it is up to you. As to your other question, if you feel that something needs to be added or removed from the other entry, you are free to tag it or edit it. You might check out the other stuff exists section as well which might explain it better than I can. Wperdue (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
Response to third opinion request (Disagreement over what claims are valid and how they should be sourced.):
With regard to the particular claim of having the largest community of its kind, the current source is big-boards.com which shows statistical trends but provides no independent comparative figures on the other leading sites. Consequently that particular piece of information fails WP:SELFPUB point 2, 4 and potentially 1. If a reliable source could be added, then the information would be suitable.
The rationale that the site markets itself as "The busiest dance music forum in the world" might be made but this would still fail WP:SELFPUB point 1 (unduly self-serving) as it is not clear that this is the site's primary slogan or how third parties refer to the site. I suggest a comparison to Gaydar (website) where care has been taken to add factual information in order to keep the article encyclopaedic and not repeat unnecessary marketing information that can be found by visiting the site itself.
Conclusion: Although information from the site may be used and quoted in this article, in order to be sufficiently notable such information must be verifiable and in the case of the examples quoted, they fail the guidance of WP:NRVE with the current citations supplied.—Teahot (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced reference #2 by a better reference comparing DOA to other large communities. As the reference shows, DOA is the second largest dance music community (tenth overall in the general Music category) and is the largest D&B community with regards to number of posts and members. If anyone knows of a better independent source to verify this, then please come forward. As far as slogans go, DOA's primary slogan is "Where The Music Talks." I'll add this to the Infobox. Thanks. Dog On Acid (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Dogs On Acid. 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}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Dogs on Fire"

[edit]

Article should be renamed per MOS:TITLECAPS. IceWalcome (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dogs_On_Acid&oldid=1223772466"