Talk:GameFAQs/GameFAQs message boards/Archive 2

message: To me this article needs to shed about 100 kilos already, so the question of what (from another slightly bloated article) to merge here is a thorny one.  I'd suggest first trimming out about 50% of what's here and then thinking about merging the ascii art details in.  Thoughts? - brenneman{T}{L}  08:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree its a bit long, but why remove the link to LUEshi just before posting this? The entry in this article is still there, and LUEshi finally got a consensus to keep it.  Might as well have the link. HTL2001 (Talk|Contrib) 19:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LUEshi never got a consensus to keep the article; discussion on the fifth AFD noted that there was just no consensus to delete the article, not that Wikipedia wants to keep the article.  The admin who restorted the article (which las led to its last three AFD nominations) told me that he thought it should be deleted, but restored it due to improper procedure. - Hbdragon88 22:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Actaully, the result "officially" was to redirect and merge. Someone was bold and undid it, instead of brining it to WP:DR.--Toffile 19:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This latest VfD ended a bit messily. One admin (the one who started this section) was preparing to close it with a "merge and redirect", when another jumped in and closed it with a "keep". They have stated on their talk page that a merge is okay under their decision, but then a third came in and reverted the LUEshi page after it was changed to a redirect, citing the "keep" decision and claiming "vote manipulation". Confusing. WarpstarRider 23:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I just noticed it a little while ago. I've asked for some advice from the admins involved, but I think this may have to be brought to Deletion Review.--Toffile 23:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Huh? I'm looking at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LUEshi (5th nomination) and it certainly looks like a keep to me... oh well.  Even so, why unwiki it, it doesn't save any space and seems more like someone just wants to start undermining the links to the lueshi article (for a 6th nomination?).  I don't see why we would need to get rid of that article anyway (I suppose you can say I'm an inclusionist) but thats not realy what this discussion is for.  I'm all for the slimming of this article but if something is referenced that has an article for further reading it should be wiki'd. --HTL2001 (Talk|Contrib) 01:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: additional: I just noticed none of the other definitions are linked at the beginning... for formatting then, I'd link the first occurence of LUEshi seen in the definition --HTL2001 (Talk|Contrib) 01:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because everything sets an example.  Precedents are set.  It seemas though LUEshi has become a major player in the definition of an internet meme - one that was unfolding for the fourth AFD and evolved considerably on its fifth AFD.  The process has so far been swamped with the question, "What defines a notable meme?"  An established guideline will decide whether articles like O RLY? and LUEshi and other Internet memes are kept or not.  The second AFD for O RLY? even mentioned LUEshi; one user voting said, "If O RLY goes, LUEshi goes." - Hbdragon88 05:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Kill the jargon section. I think we attempted to do this a while ago, and almost all of the current list was merged to a list over on the WikiFAQs.--Toffile 19:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to merge? 

message: Can we reach a consensus as to whether or not to keep LUEshi wikified? It's got its own article, so why do people keep de-linking int? --Scottie theNerd 21:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A subversive way to deaden the article.  I for one despise Template:Gameinfo, so I keep removing it from the pages that I do see it on.  Of course, I justify my reasoning based on the fact that many links are redundant and stupid. - Hbdragon88 05:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LUEshi is back. He's not leaving this time. 164.107.197.49 23:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[LUEshi]]

message: According to the Vesti, the term VSpAm is used by you GameFAQers. Is this true?
:Never heard of it. Fik 13:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did they specify a board?  Maybe it's a LUE thing. - Hbdragon88 22:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It's another (non-GF) group trying to sneak a reference to themselves in here. They posted them in the main article and the LUEshi article as well, but I reverted them. WarpstarRider 23:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  VSpAm 

message: I removed the jargon section. I don't feel it's appropriate for an encyclopedia article, and it's one of the harder things to keep policed. I added a link to the WikiFAQs jargon list for those who are interested further.--Toffile 15:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jargon section 

message: I moved the spinoff websites section here on March 24th. (, Apparently during the changes to the GameFAQs page, someone reinserted the material. I moved it from the main article to the message board article, to prevent a content fork...the spinoff websites is primarilly a message board-related issue, and has no function in the main article.--Toffile 12:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair play.  I had it in my head that it had been removed from one of them because of content forking, I just picked the wrong one.  Any chance this article has any sources?  Hiding  talk 13:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I'm not sure. This section would be harder to track down sources for, as it's all decentralized. I'll do my best, but it's probably going to need to be trimmed.--Toffile 16:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced it with the other version. There are too many claims that can't be independently verified. However, there is an archive, and I'm wondering if it could be sourced for the "many users have created their own forums based on the layout and general functioning of those of GameFAQs. ". It's an archive of the install files for the forums.--Toffile 14:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spinoff Websites 

message: I keep seeing people posting about it in GameFAQs. Is it a secret board?
:I imagine it would be. This, however, does not relate to the article in any way. --Scottie theNerd 12:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article lists most of the secret boards, how wouldn't it be related to the article?--195.229.242.54 19:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it isn't an official secret board. --Scottie theNerd 05:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is paradiso? 

message: Last word I saw was that it was temporary and that it would be taken down sometime in the future. Just because someone doesn't like the new stylesheet, does not mean that the links need to be "fixed" to /gfaqs9/, when /gfaqs/ is perfectly valid, and the spread sheet that the majority of people see when they come to the site.--Toffile 16:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not add a section about the user stylesheet board? Fik 01:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an unnecessary detail. This is an encyclopedia article about the boards in general, not an in-depth reference guide to the workings of GameFAQs. --Scottie theNerd 02:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  /gfaqs9 

message: Why does LUEshi get its own article when LUE itself doesn't? LUE seems more notable than a piece of ASCII art that's popular on the board in question. CameoAppearance 03:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because LUELinks likes to votestack.--Toffile 10:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: In terms of memes and participation in the area of the Internet containing YTMND, 4chan, Fark, and SA, LL is much more active than LUE. The LUEshi meme, in this regard, is a representative of LL and not necessarily LUE. Of course, this brings up the question of why LUElinks still isn't in WP. - Corbin Be excellent 21:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was; the article was deleted. CameoAppearance 02:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LUE 

message: I don't think it's his code that the GameSpot, TV.com and mp3.com forums are based on. IIRC, they were created by some other company and there's merely a gateway that connects the shared boards on GF and GS together which is why there are still some unresolved bugs between them, such as no GF poster being able to post in a topic with less than 5 characters in its title created by a poster from GS. Can someone look further into this? --Synthesilica 13:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CJayC coded the original site, and continues to code some of the current site. CNET has introduced standard formats for its sites. --Scottie theNerd 08:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ceej's code? 

message: That LUElinks and Digital Pandemic both boast over 10,000 users.
In addition, whiteFyre and Mediarchive were both based on the GameFAQs Hell Source.
-- Mik 01:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  May I point out... 

message: Do you think that there should be some mention of how strictly, and sometimes even overzealously, the moderators enforce the ToS?  I frequent at least a dozen different forums on a nearly daily basis, and I've got to say that the GameFAQs mods (especially in the past year or so) have really gone off the deep end in regards to modding people for deemed offensiveness and that even on the social boards the rules are enforced to a degree that no other board that I'm aware off even approaches.  I know that there wouldn't be a really empirical way of doing this, nor would it really be possible to do without POV charges being levied by some, but I do believe that this is a matter that should be discussed.  RPH 19:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, that would violate Wikipedia's core policies WP:OR and WP:NPOV unless someone can find a reliable external source which discusses the matter (and the chances of that happening are almost nothing). -- Steel 19:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The moderators haven't caused anything resembling a controversy, so I don't see a need to discuss the relative strictness of ToS enforcement. Also, as mentioned above, there are issues of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. --Scottie theNerd 04:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ToS Enforcement Strictness