Talk:Outpost Gallifrey

message: The problem with this article as it stands is that the only source is the website itself... Looking at Wikipedia:Notability (websites), the first suggestion is that "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". Here's one to start us off , but think a few more should be found promptly! Tim! (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could probably find some examples of the British press using the OG forums for tidbits on slow news days — it's happened quite a few times now. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Mirror's story about Shaun closing the forums in March last year after the Eccleston departure announcement should still be around online somewhere to reference. It'd be a good one as it's actually about the site, rather than simply using it for news. Angmering 06:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  I've added that and an L.A. Times citation, which should suffice for the notability criterion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: has recently put several tags on the page, which have been subsequently removed by other editors (including myself).  These included :Template:accuracy, :Template:advertisement and (most baffling to me) :Template:sermon.  I've invited M62 to come discuss his or her concerns here.  Are there NPOV concerns that we should be addressing?  Notable criticism of the site?  (I know that updates have been less frequent than they used to be, but is that encyclopedic?)  I think that the sourced comments that we've got here are appropriate, and all the info is correct.  Is it too hagiographic?  (Can you be hagiographic about a website?)  I'd like to hear more. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies for those templates: I should have used Wikipedia:Sandbox for them not a live article! --TheM62Manchester 22:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, right. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK... that was odd, but I'll assume good faith... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TheM62Manchester's concerns 

message: I see that someone has replaced my screenshot from last year (:Image:Outpost Gallifrey.png) with a new one (:Image:Wwwgallifreyonecomindexphp.jpg).  I don't have any problem with the image being replaced/updated, but I notice that the new image has some sort of artifact near the bottom, as if it's been cut-and-pasted and some material has been missed.
I can upload a new image if folks are interested, but I'm trying not to edit the page myself because of the conflict of interest (see above).  Would someone else be willing to replace the current image if I upload a new one? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind — the new one didn't jump through all the hoops correctly, and was deleted while I wasn't looking.  Someone else was kind enough to return my old one.  The offer to update it, if people think that would be useful, still stands. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshot, revisited 

message: I put the revisions I made a couple weeks ago back into the first paragraph because they're accurate.  Considering that I'm the editor of the site, I think I know what the site exists as more than anyone... :) -- shaun
:Hi Shaun. A few lines explanation on the reverts...
:This article is about the entity that was the noteworthy Outpost Gallifrey website.  The surviving OG page at the domain name is headlined "Welcome to the former Outpost Gallifrey", and as the Wikipedia article states, it acts as a links page to the succeeding sites (those that continue as standalone separate bodies) and the historical archive.
:The article gives a detailed breakdown of the stages of closure the site underwent.  I would suggest that the succeeding sites could not be classed as "sub-sites" of a parent that no longer exists as a going concern.
:However, as I am personally involved in some aspects of this, and given Wikipedia's rules on (potential) personal bias, I'll leave others to take this one forward. --The Missing Hour (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first paragraph 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Outpost Gallifrey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090325060837/http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue456/site.html to http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue456/site.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A new site is up, claiming to be the successor. How should it be mentioned? Robin S. Taylor (talk) 11:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outpost Gallifrey Returns