wikipedia provisional or not only records.?

[tubeguru]

Would you put any of this stuff in a printed encyclopedia?

Probably not, so one could argue that it doesn't really need a Wikipedia page when it is all here in some form or other. I do agree with the Wikipedia principle that people connected with a subject shouldn't really be key in providing the content to Wikipedia, as bias is something they try to eliminate, even if the information is written in a non-biased way.

And I've just noticed that Chris has changed the subtitle of the forum to "270 stations - 1 record", which is grammatically incorrect and needs changing immediately.

[tubeguru]

I also note that the re-written Wikipedia page is full of grammatical errors.

[Root]

What the hell has happened to the wiki page???
So much good information is now missing, who decided to remove eveything and put such limited information on the wiki page. Was it discussed on the forum, perhaps I missed something? I personally think the old wiki page was much better.

Luckily the information is all still there in the article's history, if you want to salvage it. That link is to the version of the article before CMLITC began editing it.

I think a lot of the content was good that was on it and Jbom spent a lot of time and effort into making the article what it was so it's a shame that it has all gone Also, the "alternative challenges" page is under consideration for deletion as Chase me lady, i'm the cavalry reckon that the page is not suitable for Wikipedia and should be left on the forum... "where it belongs" apparently...

I'm sure we all agree that Jbom and others put a lot of effort into the article, but that doesn't automatically mean it belongs on Wikipedia. I thought that a separate Tube Challenge Wiki was a good idea - it's worked for many other niche communities, after all - but that seems to have been scrapped in favour of a much more traditional system of editing by our good leaders.

I had no idea there even was an Alternative Tube Challenges page on Wikipedia, and I can't comprehend how anyone thought it should exist as a separate article. I've added my vote for the "delete" side of the discussion, and I hope I've not offended anyone here by doing so.

[moley]

I'm sure we all agree that Jbom and others put a lot of effort into the article, but that doesn't automatically mean it belongs on Wikipedia. I thought that a separate Tube Challenge Wiki was a good idea - it's worked for many other niche communities, after all - but that seems to have been scrapped in favour of a much more traditional system of editing by our good leaders.

I had no idea there even was an Alternative Tube Challenges page on Wikipedia, and I can't comprehend how anyone thought it should exist as a separate article. I've added my vote for the "delete" side of the discussion, and I hope I've not offended anyone here by doing so.

The Alternative Tube Challenge page on Wikipedia has been deleted.

The Wiki was going to be a nighhtmare to patrol - and was likely to cause no end of disagreements. This was pointed out to me by a number of people.

As for the prototype new front site - I've yet to get opinions on it with tubeguru or anyone else. It's an idea which may not yet happen however to successfully prototype it in connection with the forum I had to put it on the live server.

Anyone would be able to write/edit an article for the new site (one we give access to that bit). It is the approved by a Publisher and hey presto it is on the site. Information about specific challenges, actual records etc can go on the site. Details about specific challengers will go on their new public profile pages (if they want). We should still hold the same information as the proposed wiki but it will be more welcoming to the outside world who want information about tubechallenging.

[Root]

Anyone would be able to write/edit an article for the new site (one we give access to that bit). It is the approved by a Publisher and hey presto it is on the site. Information about specific challenges, actual records etc can go on the site. Details about specific challengers will go on their new public profile pages (if they want). We should still hold the same information as the proposed wiki but it will be more welcoming to the outside world who want information about tubechallenging.

That sounds good to me. I'd be happy to take some small role in it if help is required.

[RichieG]

I didn't realise there was (or wasn't now) a wiki here - I was thinking of setting one up a couple of weeks ago now as there isn't the info on the alternative challenges anywhere but didn't mainly because I didn't think there'd be much of a point given that Scriv has all (or at least the vast majority*) the times listed on his site, and thought that with a bit of tweaking that site could be used to give challenge information as well as times so was, once I get the darts program out of the way, going to approach him with the subject. Ah well.

I am however working on a few maps of the alternative challenges (I used a couple when I had the Winter Tube Olympics site up and going) but am going to do a bit more work on them because to be honest the original ones I did were shit. If you want them I'll pass them onto whomever once they're done although it's probably going to be one of those long-running projects to do once slipped in amongst all the other long-running projects I'm doing in my spare time!

* The times that Scriv lists on his site are probably the ones that would end up on a list on here or on any other site organised by us as, although there are other people who are FNCing they are (as we have discussed recently and so don't really need to here!) not necessarily members of the forum and so may not be known about. Therefore, the times that Scriv has is probably all the times we'd get anyway.

[palkanetoijala31]

I'm sure we all agree that Jbom and others put a lot of effort into the article, but that doesn't automatically mean it belongs on Wikipedia. I thought that a separate Tube Challenge Wiki was a good idea - it's worked for many other niche communities, after all - but that seems to have been scrapped in favour of a much more traditional system of editing by our good leaders.

I had no idea there even was an Alternative Tube Challenges page on Wikipedia, and I can't comprehend how anyone thought it should exist as a separate article. I've added my vote for the "delete" side of the discussion, and I hope I've not offended anyone here by doing so.

The Alternative Tube Challenge page on Wikipedia has been deleted.

The Wiki was going to be a nighhtmare to patrol - and was likely to cause no end of disagreements. This was pointed out to me by a number of people.

As for the prototype new front site - I've yet to get opinions on it with tubeguru or anyone else. It's an idea which may not yet happen however to successfully prototype it in connection with the forum I had to put it on the live server.

Anyone would be able to write/edit an article for the new site (one we give access to that bit). It is the approved by a Publisher and hey presto it is on the site. Information about specific challenges, actual records etc can go on the site. Details about specific challengers will go on their new public profile pages (if they want). We should still hold the same information as the proposed wiki but it will be more welcoming to the outside world who want information about tubechallenging.

I dont think he is going to listen to you Moley he wants the page as he sees fit so let him have it and research it and improve it the way he wants.Also he obviously thinks he is right and he still hasnt apologised!

[Sam]

Who should apologise for what?

[palkanetoijala31]

Who should apologise for what?

He made a quote on wikipedia that i think he should apologise to me for but obviously im not getting 1 (seeing as he is a forum member read this I want an apology)

[Sam]

WHO made a comment? WHO is HE?

[Root]

Chase him Sam, he's the Cavalry.

[moley]

He also doesnt understand what is involved - "It's not a sport, because there's not a great deal of physical prowess or skill involved."

[Steeevooo]

Don't you know Moley, it's pure chance that you come across a very good route, have a reasonable amount of fitness/stamina to keep going through 16/17 hours and manage to get a GWR as a result of at least the above (which having a certificate apparently doesn't prove that you have...)

[moley]

In a way what he says is true.

GWR do say that the certificate is only valid at the point it is issue as they dont notify you when it is superceeded.

[Steeevooo]

I appreciate that as a valid point, but is he not also refusing to accept the certificates as proof that the record was held by so-and-so at said date completed in said time? You can create at least a modern historical progress from the certificates as they all clearly state the date and completion time.