Talk:DMOZ

message: Above the article itself we see Wikipedia's comment:
 This article's lead section may not adequately summarize key points of its contents. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page. (December 2014)
Thank you editor, I could not agree more. After reading and re-reading the opening paragraph or two of the article several times, and scratching my head in bewilderment, I still feel quite clueless about what exactly DMOZ is and does.
Toddcs (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the Wikipedia Editor's Comment 

message: If no one cites the forum complaint, I'm removing it again. Also, I fail to see how this differs from Google, Yahoo, or any other corporately run search service.  --  Zanimum 16:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's now citations, but none are complaints, just policy pages.  --  Zanimum 16:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There are many complaints against ODP being currupt, a private club or an organization without accountability. Look at most SEO forums. Although personally I think these complaints are a bunch of hogwash, it would seem that it deserves a mention. At least the internal forums should be mentioned - so perhaps it should moved out of Controversy and criticism into Policies and procedures--Brat32 16:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed, a move is of use. And possibly merge it into another section, without its own headline. The TOC is way long right now.  --  Zanimum 16:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Forums cite

message: The figure "ODP usage" seems to be pretty out of date.  Can someone produce a newer version? ike9898 20:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Figure update  

message: Please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Google Directory just a Googlized version of the free RDF dump of ODP data?  If so, then I do not think it should be listed in the Derivatives link area.  Katalaveno 16:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that the Google Directory is sorted by page rank, which makes it a derivative.  (Disclaimer:  I'm an ODP editor when it's up, but I am not a Google employee.)  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a derivative, but it should be listed to help differentiate the fact that Google is Google and ODP is ODP, since many assume they are the same (company). But it does bring up an interesting questsion, since I have a couple of ODP derivatives that are not just ODP clones and though I'm tempted, they should not be listed. I would think in general that it is not ok to list all ODP derivatives even if they add content. --ArmadilloFromHell 20:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but it's only one of hundreds of sites that use ODP data, although probably the best known. I don't think it needs to be listed as a derivative. —Wrathchild (talk) 03:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's some discusion of this at Talk:List_of_web_directories#DMOZ_clones --AGoon 12:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link to Google Directory 

message: At a very quick glance, there are too few references for the article to be a GA. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed GA 

message: Is there a wikipdia tag for a page to display a reference to the Open Directory Project entry of the same name?  I think wikipedia should also be a directory, it includes a directory of itself at least.  Anyway, if it's not a directory, perhaps it should link to one?  I figure every page should have a link to a better site for the things wikipedia is not.  Mathiastck 15:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: .  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no one-to-one correlation between Wikipedia articles and DMOZ categories, you have to locate the appropriate category on DMOZ and include it as a variable when applying the template. The template is usually only used in situations where the number of external links on an article has grown too large, and people keep adding more, and even that usage is sometimes debated if the available DMOZ categories are too non-specific. --Versageek 01:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Tag 

message: === DMOZ Related ===
Are all DMOZ/ODP-related fora notable?  I mean, DMOZ Resources Webmasters Zone is primarily an SEO forum, with a DMOZ theme, run by (self-proclaimed) ex-DMOZ editors.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None are.  Forums should normally be avoided as external links, WP:EL. Resource zone, Dmoz Resources, and the mention of the trivial Dummies guide forum should all be removed. 2005 23:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "dummies guide" isn't a forum, as well you should know.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link to it says "forum", as you should know. 2005 00:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite.  That's an error in the link.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  I would say that http://www.resource-zone.com/ is notable, and should be included as an external link. (I see it's recently been removed.) It may not be officially part of the project or run by AOL, but it does appear to be officially endorsed as "our Public Forums" at http://forums.dmoz.org/ . — Rjw62 11:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 09:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Coolbunny, please read the above.  You could argue the "dummies guide", although it's linked from the FAQ of the forum, but, as http://forums.dmoz.org links to http://www.resource-zone.com, it's an appropriate link.  DMOZ Webmasters zone, and other SEO fora, are notable only if there is some other externality making it/them appropriate, such as being run by editors or by ex-editors. .  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Are all DMOZ/ODP-related fora notable?  I mean, DMOZ Resources Webmasters Zone is primarily an SEO forum, with a DMOZ theme, run by (self-proclaimed) ex-DMOZ editors.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None are.  Forums should normally be avoided as external links, WP:EL. Resource zone, Dmoz Resources, and the mention of the trivial Dummies guide forum should all be removed. 2005 23:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "dummies guide" isn't a forum, as well you should know.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link to it says "forum", as you should know. 2005 00:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite.  That's an error in the link.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  I would say that http://www.resource-zone.com/ is notable, and should be included as an external link. (I see it's recently been removed.) It may not be officially part of the project or run by AOL, but it does appear to be officially endorsed as "our Public Forums" at http://forums.dmoz.org/ . — Rjw62 11:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 09:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Coolbunny, please read the above.  You could argue the "dummies guide", although it's linked from the FAQ of the forum, but, as http://forums.dmoz.org links to http://www.resource-zone.com, it's an appropriate link.  DMOZ Webmasters zone, and other SEO fora, are notable only if there is some other externality making it/them appropriate, such as being run by editors or by ex-editors. .  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DMOZ Related 

message: I suggest that links to static clones of dmoz.org (other than the semi-official dmoztools.net) should not be listed. They are not relevant and in most cases does not follow the licence to display the data. Since they are static they are obsolete and not needed when the active site curlie.org is now operational. Informatox (talk) 06:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clones 

message: I suggest that the dmoz.org link be removed from the infobox because it is now down (it gives 403 error). There is probably no need to keep it live. It can be kept as "was dmoz.org", or something like that. Just not a live link, especially because it could become a completely different website.
Alexis Wilke (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  dmoz.org gone! 

message: I just noticed that the start and end dates don't make sense. ("On October 20, 2006, the ODP's main server suffered a catastrophic system failure[4] that prevented editors from working on the directory until December 18, 2006.[5]")   I didn't find the correct info in the links so thought I would mention it here. Chaveso (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is almost 2010. This entire section seems irrelevant.88.75.164.109 (talk) 11:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  October 2006 outage 

message: OMFG, could this article be filled with more jargon and less encyclopedic information? It is a huge article, on something most people have never heard about, and even after trying to figure what this "directory" is supposed to do, or why anybody would use it, I see a readme.txt file from a bad shareware program. Stop editing English articles if you cannot speak English. Even the first paragraph does not say anything in plain English other than it is owned by Netscape. What is the international code for Nerdish? Maybe you guys can go to the Klingon or Esperanto versions... 75.2.218.99 (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While the OP is saying it in an inelegant manner (one of the authors is fairly accredited, and from the comments has a firm grasp of the English language), I'd agree this article could use some cleanup.  However, after reading all the comments I don't really feel I've got the nuanced tongue to put it in better, cleaner, and more importantly, useful wording.  Especially since I feel I may be bludgeoned by one side or the other for doing so.  Which is why this article will probably remain fairly squirrelly in its coherence.
209.113.239.146 (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup Needed 

message: 
I have found this previous HTML comment in a page at the external link section. To me, this is advertising. Since when AOL's DMoz is a part of Wiki projects? This is only a pretext to invite to fill their own database with a fake involving in Wikipedia. Lacrymocéphale 16:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment is not about this article. If you object to Wikipedia policy on external links, I suggest that you discuss your concerns at Wikipedia talk:External links. --Orlady (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intrusive DMoz comments 

message: I see that "Dmoz" has been added to DMZ (disambiguation), which I think is probably appropriate. However, I don't see any value in the hatnote that was added to the article pointing to DMZ, particularly since it lists no "other uses" of "DMOZ." Are people really coming to DMOZ looking for DMZ? --Orlady (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The anon's changes to this article and the DMZ dab were politically incorrect. I have reverted him/her, and explained why in my edit summaries. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation hatnote

message: Most of the tags in the topical sections are gone now. Let's try to address a few of the tags in the controversial section. Currently it looks like someone has marked all the criticism as uncited, which was not the case. Actually nearly everything had a tag, and up to now I only worked on finding cites for the topical parts. Simply because - as a senior ODP editor - I have more interest in those parts. :)
::and other proponents of free software[citation needed], many of whom also criticise the ODP content license
I know that the GNU guys (correctly) criticised the ODP license system. I personally do not know of any other free software group who did so, at least none that did not just said "Hey, the GNU guys are right on this". If noone objects and/or finds a cite for this, I am going to remove the other free software groups from this statement.
::There have long been allegations[who?] that volunteer ODP editors give favorable treatment to their own websites while concomitantly thwarting the good faith efforts of their competition.[citation needed] 
Of course those allegations have been there. That's why the ODP inplemented a Public Abuse Report System. Most of these allegations have not been true, but some have been. I can offer a forum posting which tries to give some kind of summary  from 2000. If anyone knows better sources, please provide. We could either replace the "who" tag with "from webmasters" or simply remove it, I don't think it's necessary to go into detail who complains here.
::Other alleged abuses[who?] have occurred at the executive level, with company management leveraging the link value from ODP to accelerate new privately funded projects.[citation needed]
First of all, as a foreigner, I don't really understand the use of "at the executive level" here. There is no such level in DMOZ, and I can't imagine the outside is meant.''
About the content: Talking about the Topix links here, I imagine. At least I can't remember any other "privately funded project" where this has happened. While that has caused quite a lot of talk internally, I am unable to find one good cite on the outside. The only mentions of this are in comments to blog posts, which I consider a really unreliable source.
Anyone got a nice source for me?
::Early in the history of the ODP, its staff gave representatives of selected websites, such as Rolling Stone magazine, editing access at ODP in order to list many individual pages from those websites.[citation needed]
That can only be proven by internal forum posts, which don't count. Personally, I would not consider this statement being really in need of a citation, because it is no disputet. I vote for just removing this tag and keeping the statement.
::The use of such professional content providers lapsed and the experiment has not been repeated.[citation needed]
And that's fun. While the first part is a personal meaning of the writer (and should be removed), the second part is a "has not happened again" statement which can not be cited by definition. Remove the part "... lapsed" and keep the rest, remove the tag.
That's another paragraph, and I think that's enough for now. This article is the result of many disuccsions and a mediation, so I won't change anything until everyone who wants to has had the chance to comment here. --Windharp (talk) 08:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had a look for a reference describing the use of "professional content providers" some time ago, but all I could find was http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum17/1330.htm (post #:470557 is the most relevant). Not great as a source, but possibly better than nothing. Your other suggestions look good to me. -- Rjw62 (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I figured that the time between my posting and now should be sufficient for everyone to comment. Implemented the changes above. -- Windharp (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who/Facts/... tags part 3 

message: And another section. Even though barely anyone seems to be interedted I will post my changes here before execution
Many of the original GnuHoo volunteers felt that they had been deceived into joining a commercial enterprise.[citation needed]
I would replace "Many" by "Some", because for "many" we would need more than one citation. Citation is already in the list: "The GnuHoo BooBoo". Slashdot. Retrieved on April 27.
Most of that controversy died down when the project was renamed NewHoo.[citation needed] Moreover, when Netscape (whose parent company is AOL) acquired the project, renamed it ODP, and released ODP's content under an open content license, criticism of the ODP all but disappeared.[citation needed] However, as ODP's content became widely used by most major search engines and web directories, the issue of ODP's ownership and management resurfaced.[citation needed]
Actually I think that section does need a rewrite. From my memory there was not really such a thing as a large coming and going of criticism by the general public. Criticism has always been by some individuals, whihc of course came and went, but in small numbers that's natural. I would change the preceeding sentence to something like "Already in the early days of the directory, some of he original GnuHoo ...". If someone more fluent in english than me can offer a one-sentence version of the above paragraph stating that these complaints went on until today (and leaving out the first/then/then part), I might be able to find a cite for that.
As time went on, the ODP Editor Forums became the de facto ODP parliament,[citation needed] and when one of ODP's staff members would post an opinion in the forums, it would be considered an official ruling.[citation needed]
See the ODP guidelines, especially ODP Communication Guidelines
(In other words, "Staff has spoken.")
Remove, not suitable for an encyclopedia. (True though)
There was also a short-lived attempt at moderation of the ODP Editor Forums, but it was abandoned as being the antithesis of the egalitarian principles on which the ODP community was supposed to be based.[citation needed] 
No source available but the forum itself, remove sentence.
Even so, ODP staff began to give trusted senior editors additional editing privileges,[citation needed] including the ability to approve new editor applications, which eventually led to a stratified hierarchy of duties and privileges among ODP editors, with ODP's paid staff having the final say regarding ODP's policies and procedures.[citation needed]
Meta guidelines and Admin Guidelines. if anybody insists we could try to shown that they have not been there on archive.org copies, but I don't think that's necessary.
As always, any input welcome. Unless objections occur I will implement the changes at some point in the future. -- Windharp (talk) 09:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagged claims part 4 

message: Editors (metas) have made public comments that there is a new mindset among ODP editors that although the ODP Website says that an editor will review sites submitted via the suggestion page that editors are under no obligation to ever look at the pool of submitted suggestions and actually encourage editors to add their own suggestions rather than those submitted by the public.  [http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?p=10307487  Rejected by DMOZ  Essentially creating a directory for the editors interests and not in the interest of the users.
Apart from the not very encyclopedic style, there are a few things that are wrong:
that there is a new mindset
Not a new mindset, that's how it has been all the time. It's even in the RZ FAQ and to some degree mentioned in a Blog posting made by staff. There are lots of much older mentions of this fact in RZ, like  or . Of course site suggestions are one possible source of new listings, but just one among lots. And thats's just what the editors quoted in that thread say. 
although the ODP Website says that an editor will review sites submitted via the suggestion page
Yes, and the statement is intentionally not containing a maximum timeframe. A suggestion will eventually be reviewed, but due to several constraints, including editors listing sites from many other sources, we can't predict when this will be. Which fits perfectly with the above and is no "although". 
Essentially creating a directory for the editors interests and not in the interest of the users.
Personal Opinion of the author. Actually it is a misunderstanding of the group "users od DMOZ", which I see happen rather often among webmasters. To the ODP, the "user" is the person using the directory to find sites. Same situation as a newspaper, where the "users" are the readers and not news agencies.
I am now going to rephrase that passage accordingly. -- Windharp (talk) 10:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_Directory_Project&curid=18949501&diff=276890972&oldid=276661994 Addition by 208.104.97.203] 

message: And another one. AFAICT the big tag can be removed after these changes, since only very few points remain. Even though I am talking to myself, I post my plans here for interested people to discuss.
Allegations that editors are removed for criticizing policies
ODP's paid staff has imposed controversial policies from time to time[citation needed], and volunteer editors who dissent in ways staff considers uncivil may find their editing privileges removed.[citation needed] One alleged example of this was chronicled at the XODP Yahoo! eGroup in May 2000.[40] The earliest known exposé was Life After the Open Directory Project, later appearing as a June 1, 2000, guest column written for Traffick.com,[41] by David F. Prenatt, Jr. (former ODP editor "netesq") after losing his ODP editing privileges. Another example was the volunteer editor known by the alias The Cunctator, who was banned from the ODP soon after submitting an article to Slashdot on October 24, 2000, which criticized changes in ODP's copyright policies.[42]
 
I started to do this sentence by sentence, but the whole paragraph should be rewritten. It is actually about two very specific removals (netesq and the cunctator) and not about "volunteer editors who dissent in ways staff considers uncivil". And as netesq says in his articles, all he can do is speculate. So I propose to move the block after "Editor removal procedures" and change it to:
Allegations that editors are removed for criticizing policies
David F. Prenatt, Jr. (former ODP editor netesq) and the former editor known by the alias The Cunctator claim to have been removed for disagreeing with staff about policy changes. According to their claims, staff used the excuse that their behaviour was uncivil, to remove bothersome editors.[40][41][42]
 
While I know that those claims are unfounded (for example those decisions have been among the first to be made by meta consensus, not just by staff decision) I can't source that apropriately and will refrain from doing so.
----
Uninhibited discussion of ODP's purported shortcomings has become more common on mainstream Webmaster discussion forums.[citation needed]
One could use a generic link to a webmaster discussion forum for this, but I personally don't think this needs to be sourced. But it's misplaced. So: Implement into the main controversy section and remove tag.
----
Some people[who?] find this arrangement distasteful, wanting instead a discussion modeled more like a trial held in the U.S. judicial system.[citation needed]
The only source I can find is the XODP Yahoo group where an author posted a few collected comments that point this way. The comments don't have signatures, so the "who" can't be said. Remove the "who" tag and source with the XODP group which is already in references.  --Windharp (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagged Claims part 5 

message: According to that link, on 2/2/2008, there were "CNN Archives removed", which is also visibly apparent on the 'ODP size by date graph'. There's no mention of this in the article but it seems pertinent. Does anyone have information about this event? -- OlEnglish (Talk) 02:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for looking at my data collection :-) . I will add something in the section about professional editors. CNN data was only newly listed until 2004 as can be seen on . It was removed between 26 Dec 2007 and 19 Jan 2008 according to . As always, there is no public source to cite the reason, so I will just state the obvious reasons: outdated, lots of broken links and not considered worth the effort to keep updated any more. One main reason - which can't be sourced I am afraid - is that a large tendency of the editors goes towards "DMOZ should not be a replacement for other sites navigation systems". --Windharp (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh interesting. I always thought it was the data that really mattered, not so much the ease of navigation. Anyways Thanks for that. -- œ™ 14:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The CNN archives that were removed were simply archives of the CNN website, not information organized by topic. --Orlady (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning [http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pMnQYOzIZOzQoOv2Mb-uBOQ ODP Entries by Date] 

message: The link to Laisha's ODP history was removed from the EL list because it is returning an error. That's no great loss, since her content is old. 
However, the page is also (very appropriately) a cited reference, so it needs to be conserved. The content is still on archive.org in many dated versions, the latest being this 2007 version. I have not yet investigated all of the archive versions to see if they are all the same, or if a particular dated version is the best one to cite in the article. --Orlady (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heads-up regarding Laisha's history of the ODP 

message: blah, blah, blah. What is ODP? Da5id403 (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The first two sentences at the top of the article answer that question. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What? 

message: Even if the categories should exist, should "DMOZ" be listed in them?  (If not, I will propose immediate deletion of the categories created only to hold DMOZ.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The sheer number of language-based categories added to this article make it look outlandish. I think :Category:Multilingual websites should cover it, and the rest can be safely removed. - Eureka Lott 22:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? If it's published in a certain language, it fits the criteria for that category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Categories, as you well know, are supposed to be a navigational aid. When an article has (literally) 99 categories, they become more of a hindrance than an asset. It's the very definition of category clutter. - Eureka Lott 03:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Obviously, most articles won't have this many but some (e.g. Winston Churchill) do. It's a problem if this is common but it's not always strictly forbidden. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

text: Personally I don't see a benefit from the amount of categories. Do you plan to add all fitting language categories to Wikipedia as well? And to Google, Google+? If so, I won't object. Even though we clearly would need a different form of displaying them, currently it's a useless heap of links at the bottom. --Windharp (talk) 08:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The huge heap of categories there now is worse than useless. Jonathunder (talk) 03:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:''X''-language websites 

message: Not a clue to be found in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 00:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: AOL didn't say. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like the community is trying to get it up running again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  On 2017-04-29, I updated the lead to include the most definitive information I could find:  Still quite vague, but that was the exact wording from the developer site cite.  It's reasonable to infer (here on the Talk page, not in article text, without further citations) that AOL simply didn't feel it was worth it for them to spend resources on the stepchild project anymore.  --Dan Harkless (talk) 02:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why did it shut down? 

message: I undid User:Daylon124's bold edit suggesting that the article on DMOZ should be renamed wholesale to Curlie. That seems a bit too much. Websites can have forks or mirrors and that doesn't mean the original ceased to exist entirely. DMOZ as an entity died. Curlie is one of several projects to continue or revive it but actually re-writing the article and renaming it would be giving undue weight to that enterprise. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies Justin - I believed that Curlie was the official follow-on from DMOZ. I still believe that the article needs updating, it seems that it was last updated before Curlie was introduced. Would it be sensible to create a new article for the Curlie project or is it not notable enough? DAYTALK 21:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

text: Hey, no need to apologize--being bold is encouraged! It's just that there is no "official" successor. AOL has just shuttered the project entirely and the community in general have moved to Curlie. But there aren't enough sources for an article on Curlie yet. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, I understand now. Have a good day! DAYTALK 21:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, it has been updated since Curlie became a thing.  See my edits from 8-23.  That status is still current; if you click below the top-level categories on curlie.org, you get linked over to the dmoztools.net static mirror.  --Dan Harkless (talk) 05:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

text: If you'd like to formally propose it, please use the  template. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

text: The article should not be moved or renamed.  DMOZ is not the same as Curlie.  "Dmoz is closed, a historical entity" that was notable.  Curlie is a different entity.  Notability is not inherited.  DMOZ didn't just change names.  It closed.  Curlie was then created.  If Curlie meets notability requirements, make a new Curlie article. 2005 (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming to Curlie 

message: Domain registration for dmoztools.net expires tomorrow. If it is closing down, the article ought to be updated to refer to Open Directory as the mirror now. 31.185.125.165 (talk) 12:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: But why that one? As far as I can tell, no one from the DMOZ editing community was associated with it. We all moved en masse to Curlie. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Curie is just pointed to dmoztools so Curie will also stop working. 217.197.143.46 (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.curlie.org/top/index.html ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That returns nothing. What's your point? 31.185.125.207 (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If you click on any link there (e.g. "Art"), you are taken to a live link (e.g. http://dmoztools.net/Arts/) There is still a live mirror of the site. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because someone has just extended registration of dmoztools.net for a year. 77.238.217.0 (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: DMOZtools.net mirror closing down too?

message: Check the copyright dates, last updated dates, and dates of listings. This is easiest with categories which change periodically.
This is the Curlie directory, based on DMOZ and currently being updated, in which the 2014 listings now appear under Historical.
https://curlie.org/Regional/North_America/United_States/Hawaii/Society_and_Culture/Politics/Candidates_and_Campaigns/US_Senate/
These are archived copies of the DMOZ directory when it was closed down.
http://dmoztools.net/Regional/North_America/United_States/Hawaii/Society_and_Culture/Politics/Candidates_and_Campaigns/US_Senate/
http://odp.org/Regional/North_America/United_States/Hawaii/Society_and_Culture/Politics/Candidates_and_Campaigns/US_Senate/
174.198.4.195 (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original and successors 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: DMOZ →  – The new site name of DMOZ is Curlie. 205.154.222.17 (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: But I would think that the the "editable directory" is what people are interested in.  The online content under the DMOZ name is static. If we cannot do the rename, then at least the Curlie page should be populated with something other than just a redirect.--205.154.222.17 (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have sources to expand Curlie from a redirect? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The sources are slim, but I changed Curlie into a stub of an article.--205.154.222.17 (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 1 December 2018 

message: Generally, successor projects and forks/derivatives that are notable have their own articles separate from the original on Wikipedia. I don't see why the same can't be done for Curlie. 2601:8C:4500:4680:398E:84C6:F179:DA10 (talk) 06:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no 'should' about it. It can have it's own article if it is found to have enough substantial, reliable and independent sources to show it is notable. A piggybacking on the defunct DMOZ in itself just doesn't cut it. Acabashi (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

text: Then multiple substantial, reliable and independent sources are needed to support it before it becomes an article for this encyclopedia (we don't require 'thousands', that would be silly). Just because it exists doesn't make it automatically notable for Wikipedia. If there are plenty of other 'derivatives/forks/successors' on Wikipedia that don't have this source support, please list them here, or challenge them in their article Talk, and we can debate those too... just because a number of other things don't cut the mustard, doesn't mean the encyclopedia has to accept other things that don't. For the piggybacking metaphor, see Piggyback (transportation). Acabashi (talk) 10:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

text: There was an article that was deleted because after quite a lot of time no reliable sources were added.  There is a very low bar for articles.  It just needs to get some coverage by reliable sources.  If such exist someday, it can get an article.  As long as there are none, then it doesn't get an article. 2005 (talk) 04:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curlie should have its own entire separate article. 

message: Much of this is written in present imperfect tense, as if this has recently been happening, is happening, and will continue to happen. I’ve changed some to past imperfect tense. More to do. (Conflict of interest disclosure: I was, on DMOZ, for about 1½ decades, editor jdaw1.) JDAWiseman (talk) 21:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tenses 

message: :I have just read the article and the talk page. In 2008 an IP made the prediction, "Which is why this article will probably remain fairly squirrelly in its coherence." This article is a mess and I am going to reassess it to C-class. 
:The intity DMOZ is and has been defunct. When the lead states (last sentence of the third paragraph), "where plans to rebrand and relaunch the directory are being discussed", with a source titled "Why Dmoz Was Closed" (October 28, 2020) it is either past tense (this is 2023), or there are still on-going talks,  it is easy to see the confusing tense problem discussed above by . This editor claimed a conflict of interest but the site no longer exists. It seems that there would only be a conflict if there was concerns of biased editing which, unless I missed it, was not evident. Some editors clearly had some conflict and this can be seen in several places on this page.
:The top of the page states there have been "2,489 revisions since 2001-08-08 (+7 days), 1,001 editors, 418 watchers, 2,478 pageviews" in 30 days, so the subject is not dead. The article, however, is in about as bad of shape as some not-so-great start-class articles.
:Sourcing, citations and other issues: The article has had sourcing issues for a long time. The article fails more than one part of the B-class criteria, specifically sourcing issues found in criteria #1. One need only look at the Hidden categories that list "potentially dated statements" (2006 and 2017), "unsourced statements" (2016 and 2019), and "needing additional references" (2019).    
:The "External links" section should really be completely deleted. The links are controversial at best. Permalinks have their upside but Links to dead URLs [[tq|in a list of external links are of no use to Wikipedia articles.}} The idea is explained in WP:External links and an "official" website is not intended to include an archived link to a dead site. Links should  
:Links are not supposed to be portals to that website like Curlie and we should avoid links that are user generated and should have a real good reason (I can't think of any) for sending people to those sites. WP:ELBURDEN states:  so is not subjected to WP:BRD. The defacto community consensus has shown that three links are usually acceptable, sometimes four, but five or more generally fall under several areas to minimize these. Some examples:
::Note that none is needed for article promotion. 
*ELpoints #3) states: 
*LINKFARM states: 
*ELMIN: . -- 
*ELCITE (if applicable): --  Otr500 (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Article issues and classification

message: If Curlie is going to continue redirecting here, then the lead needs to include basics about it and stop talking about it in the future tense, and the article body at least needs a section about it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curlie