Difference between revisions of "Talk:Livejournal Communities"

From Super-wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:
  
 
I'm currently about halfway through the first step of updating; this is going to be a long project that gets uploaded in phases to minimize confusion. I'd appreciate feedback on the following: Communities with no content-related posts since 2007 will be labeled inactive. Comms that have updated within the last couple of years will be considered active. What about communities that were once active but haven't updated since 2008/2009? Should they be given the benefit of the doubt, or should they be sorted out of the way? [[User:Falsealexis|Falsealexis]] 07:14, 13 November 2011 (PST)
 
I'm currently about halfway through the first step of updating; this is going to be a long project that gets uploaded in phases to minimize confusion. I'd appreciate feedback on the following: Communities with no content-related posts since 2007 will be labeled inactive. Comms that have updated within the last couple of years will be considered active. What about communities that were once active but haven't updated since 2008/2009? Should they be given the benefit of the doubt, or should they be sorted out of the way? [[User:Falsealexis|Falsealexis]] 07:14, 13 November 2011 (PST)
 +
 +
Thanks so much again for taking this on. I think comms that haven't been updated since 2009 are probably inactive. cheers [[User:Missyjack|Missyjack]]
 +
 +
That's the first third of the updating process complete & saved. No information was deleted. To make things easier I (mostly) split the difference about 'inactive' comms, so any comm that hasn't had a useful, content-related post since 2008 is labeled inactive. Thanks for keeping an eye on this! [[User:Falsealexis|Falsealexis]] 12:57, 15 November 2011 (PST)

Latest revision as of 19:59, 16 November 2011

There are a lot of older communities still listed on this page and some newer communities are not yet here. Would it be reasonable to go and try to add any missing links? What about noting (defunct) or (archival) next to links that no longer work? It seems a pity to just delete them without a record, especially if they are still used to store content, but it would be great if people looking for currently active comms had some help finding them in such a long list. --Falsealexis 05:48, 4 November 2011 (PDT)

That would be wonderful if you could do that!!! Thank you. You can also email me at admin@supernaturalwiki.com if you have any questions. --Missyjack 15:07, 4 November 2011 (PDT)

I'm currently about halfway through the first step of updating; this is going to be a long project that gets uploaded in phases to minimize confusion. I'd appreciate feedback on the following: Communities with no content-related posts since 2007 will be labeled inactive. Comms that have updated within the last couple of years will be considered active. What about communities that were once active but haven't updated since 2008/2009? Should they be given the benefit of the doubt, or should they be sorted out of the way? Falsealexis 07:14, 13 November 2011 (PST)

Thanks so much again for taking this on. I think comms that haven't been updated since 2009 are probably inactive. cheers Missyjack

That's the first third of the updating process complete & saved. No information was deleted. To make things easier I (mostly) split the difference about 'inactive' comms, so any comm that hasn't had a useful, content-related post since 2008 is labeled inactive. Thanks for keeping an eye on this! Falsealexis 12:57, 15 November 2011 (PST)