5,637
edits
Talk:Biohack: Difference between revisions
Reply
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) | |||