I expect this will sound rather unfeeling, but it strikes me that a lot of this stuff has nothing obviously to do with the aim of this project, which is to write an encyclopaedia. -- AW
Removed from page:
True enough, but beside the point. That belongs in September 11 and 1973 pages.
Cunctator, I think it has been discussed enough. This is not an encyclopedia article. Period. It may be the most popular page in the web, but I don't care. We are building an encyclopedia here and this doesn't belong here. If we want popular pages, we should stop this project and start a porno website. We could even earn some money, then.
Jeronimo
If this page is appropriate and 'NPOV' then I propose the following 'In Memorium' additions to the WIKI project for starters:
Oh sorry, am I being 'disrespectful'??????? quercus robur 08:32 Sep 25, 2002 (UTC)
How much more can we discuss this?!? I think we're all in agreement that this is NOT an encyclopedia article and doesn't belong in Wikipedia, no matter how popular it is - Cunctator seems to be the only exception. Or am I mistaken? Does anyone else think this has a legitimate place in the encyclopedia? If not, Cunctator are you willing to accept that there's substantial agreement on this? Graft 16:55 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)
See
http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-September/005409.html --
The Cunctator
Actually it was my suggestion the sep11.wikipedia.org Many people considered meta.wikipedia.org an adecuate end for it, so the .wikipedia.org ending doesn't mean that it has to be bound to the NPOV policy, or that is part of the encyclopedia. I also thought that another name was possible, but that had to be bought (Jimbo said he would do it, anyway). Just dumping in into meta is not respectful enough. I'm sure Jimbo would not have problem in creating hiroshima.wikipedia.org, and all the rest if there were somebody willing to mantaing it as cunc is willing to work in the sep11 stuff. In short, the idea of putting it somewhere else is because www.wikipedia.org is not the adequate place, but neither is meta.wikipedia.org.
Also, I do not undertand why meta.wikipedia.org is OK, but something_else.wikipedia.org is not.-- AN
I'm glad you guys wrote in while I was drafting a response, because you formulated better arguments, more concisely. -- The Cunctator
I have no problem with *.wikipedia.org, but why should it get special redirects rather than just a regular link? Anyway, I'm tired of fighting about this, so I'll just back off. Just so long as it isn't here anymore, I don't care. Graft
I prefer the idea of having a general tribute.wikipedia.org for this type of stuff. Then no event in history is excluded from inclusion. 9/11 is way too focused. What about the next big terrorist act that kills thousands? Need we set up separate Wikis for all? Setting up each one is time-consumming. A general tribute site could have a Vietnam War area, a WWII area etc, a PanAm 103 area, etc. -- mav
Seems reasonable to me. sep11 was just the first think that came to my mind. You just have to convice Cunc. --
AN
I think memoriam.wikipedia.org is a better name, but of course with the magic of Apache, we can have sep11.wikipedia.org, tribute.wikipedia.org, memoriam.wikipedia.org, etc. all do what we want, be it point to the same page, or subpages, redirects, etc. etc. The naming is not a serious issue. Pretty much all that needs to be done is to set up a separate wiki instance, play around with it a bit to get it to do what we want, then redirect content over there. Right now we're trying to do this in the opposite direction. -- The Cunctator
But what do we do with this page in the meantime? It is requesting material that we, or at least most of us, want to get rid of. I have thought about simply removing that, but then nothing remains of the page. If someone finds a way to turn this page into something that a majority of Wikipedians can agree with, it would be much appreciated. I have thought about doing it myself, but I see no actual contents to leave, and I don't want to remove this page either - at least not until we have decided where it should go. Andre Engels 15:05 Sep 28, 2002 (UTC)
Well if page popularity is the criteria, oral sex has had almost as many hits... quercus robur