Talk:Luminous-Lint

Significance

This article has previously been deleted via CSD A7.

The article clearly asserted significance then, and clearly does so now. Feel free to disagree, but if so then take this to AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

How does a website move?

I understand that the contact address for the website may have moved, but that is not the same thing as a website moving. A website is part of the information cloud, and it likely didn't even change hosts during this supposed move. The claim that the website moved should be changed, or perhaps eliminated (as this article is supposedly about a website, and not about the person or company behind the website; if this move had no effect on the website itself, I don't see the significance.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Polling a whois for this domain name brings the worthless information that it's held by some outfit called "WhoisProtector Inc." It appears to be hosted by hostway.net, which appears to be based in Chicago. This information, or non-information, may or may not be of interest to you or me. (To me, it's not of interest.) It's customary to say that a website is Czech or Australian or Croatian or Angolan or whatever, and for those wishing to know this factoid I attempted to do so here in a way that may not be particularly informative but which I also think is not misleading. You are free to disagree and to edit accordingly. -- Hoary (talk) 05:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No response, so I made an edit that I hope was an improvement. -- Hoary (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The name of the site

This page was moved under the claim that the name of the site was actually "Luminous Lint", rather than the hyphenated version. However, looking at the site itself, the only place that I find a non-hyphenated version is in the graphic logo header; every place it appears in the text, the site is referred to with the hyphen (and is also referred as such on their blogspot page and on other sources created presumably by the site owner.) As such, I recommend that the page be moved back. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd been approaching this conclusion myself; I'll rerename it during the next few minutes. -- Hoary (talk) 05:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC) ... Done (and links adjusted too). -- Hoary (talk) 05:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Prod and speedy

This article won itself a prod notice. I didn't remove this, as I thought I'd improve the article first. It then got a speedy notice

as an article about a web site, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject

It already had a link to this. Yes, it's merely one of 18, but take a good look at the other 17: most are the sites of galleries and institutions that had already won recognition outside the web. -- Hoary (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on whether this is notable or not, I'm staying unbiased. But that sounds dangerously close to an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or a WP:INHERITED argument. I see the value of it, it certainly suggests there is notability, but it doesn't in itself prove it. Again, not commenting on the article, only commenting on the citation.--v/r - TP 02:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting comment. My immediate reaction was that Wikipedia:Other stuff exists and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Notability is inherited were utterly irrelevant to the list. Could they be relevant to the article? I decided to re-(skim)read them. What I found rather surprised me. The examples given for the second included some that flatly contradict de facto en:WP policy. I think I remember seeing AfDs for Playboy "playmates" that got indignant "keep" votes and for which the nominator was censured for the stupidity or ignorance or effrontery or whatever it was that had led him to think and suggest that a "playmate", any "playmate", could not merit an article. On shapely people, how's this: Sumo wrestlers are presumed notable if they have been ranked in either the top makuuchi division or second highest juryo division. (I could explore this line further, but doing so could look like an AfD "Other stuff exists" article.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Umm, no slight intended, but you've completely lost me.--v/r - TP 22:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Luminous-Lint. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606120815/http://slantoflight.org/2011/05/postcard-from-the-past/ to http://slantoflight.org/2011/05/postcard-from-the-past/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)