Talk:Biohack: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
(Reply) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
:I've marked it with the <nowiki>{{Cannot connect}}</nowiki> template. If it remains in this status for several days, we should probably change its status to inactive. --[[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]] 19:49, 16 September 2009 (EDT) | :I've marked it with the <nowiki>{{Cannot connect}}</nowiki> template. If it remains in this status for several days, we should probably change its status to inactive. --[[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]] 19:49, 16 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
::Still down. Plus isn't this like category spamming or something? Too many categories don't really help the reader to see the core point of the wiki. Or would you place Wikipedia in all available categories just because they have articles on everything? :s [[User:Patheticcockroach|Patheticcockroach]] 17:35, 22 September 2009 (EDT) | ::Still down. Plus isn't this like category spamming or something? Too many categories don't really help the reader to see the core point of the wiki. Or would you place Wikipedia in all available categories just because they have articles on everything? :s [[User:Patheticcockroach|Patheticcockroach]] 17:35, 22 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::My personal rule of thumb is not to mark a site as inactive until a month or two has passed. It could just be a really bad server crash or a relaunch on a new server. But I don't think we've set any hard and fast rules. | |||
:::As for the category spamming, it does seem excessive, but if you look at the categories, it's not just a completely random collection of words. The categories are related. Also, if spamming was the intention, I would assume that they'd target already existing categories; over one third are non-existent. That said, I don't see any problem with paring it down if you see fit to do so. --[[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]] 17:59, 22 September 2009 (EDT) | |||
Revision as of 21:59, 22 September 2009
do you think, this is a positive example for category inclusion? if so we should be much more generous for other wikis as well --Kardan 01:20, 19 December 2008 (EST)
Site is down presently
Biohack has a problem
Sorry! This site is experiencing technical difficulties.
Try waiting a few minutes and reloading.
(Can't contact the database server: Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/run/mysqld/mysqld.sock' (2) (localhost)) Lumenos 19:38, 16 September 2009 (EDT)
- I've marked it with the {{Cannot connect}} template. If it remains in this status for several days, we should probably change its status to inactive. --MarvelZuvembie 19:49, 16 September 2009 (EDT)
- Still down. Plus isn't this like category spamming or something? Too many categories don't really help the reader to see the core point of the wiki. Or would you place Wikipedia in all available categories just because they have articles on everything? :s Patheticcockroach 17:35, 22 September 2009 (EDT)
- My personal rule of thumb is not to mark a site as inactive until a month or two has passed. It could just be a really bad server crash or a relaunch on a new server. But I don't think we've set any hard and fast rules.
- As for the category spamming, it does seem excessive, but if you look at the categories, it's not just a completely random collection of words. The categories are related. Also, if spamming was the intention, I would assume that they'd target already existing categories; over one third are non-existent. That said, I don't see any problem with paring it down if you see fit to do so. --MarvelZuvembie 17:59, 22 September 2009 (EDT)
- Still down. Plus isn't this like category spamming or something? Too many categories don't really help the reader to see the core point of the wiki. Or would you place Wikipedia in all available categories just because they have articles on everything? :s Patheticcockroach 17:35, 22 September 2009 (EDT)