Think "Lame" as in "lame horse"... these are entries that need work or need to be put down. The topic might be interesting and the entry well worth spending time on, but they can't walk the walk as they are currently written.

Probably Unsalvagable

  • Christianity
    • The Christianity page has a lot of non-davis information (and i'm not convinced it should). I'm sure there are people in davis who worship satan. —ArlenAbraham
    • I tried to condense as much information as I could for a person who has little or no knowledge on the subject. The intention was to educate, in a quick and organized manner without the person having to search wikipedia or something and recieving a long article and deciding its not worth their time. I was trying to alleviate ignorace. — CarlosOverstreet
  • Exiting Safe Zone Entering Reality - Charter Member of the Lame Wiki Page Club
  • White Supremacists
    • Unless someone else can verify a White Supremacist presence, I say, delete. —JosephBleckman
      • Search the Davis Enterprise archives, search for hate crime and the article will be number nine. It's basically about some skinheads in Davis beating the crap out of each other.
  • Turtle House/Name Debate - mind-numbingly useless. I disagree. The debate shows a lot about the inner culture of the house and what people find to be important to themselves. If you just skimmed it and thought it was just a debate about whether to name it "turtle house" or not then you might be right, but there is more discussed than that.
    • When the bulk of wiki pages are made up of opinion, I don't understand how folks can say definitively that one page is useless. The page is longer than the Covell Village Debate? Perhaps that shows that this is an important issue for those involved. If you have no knowledge or investment in it, of course it is going to appear useless to you. I am uninterested in much of the content of the DavisWiki, but it would be wrong to delete it because I think it is stupid. —MorganFlores
      • It's not really about whether the page has a lot of opinion or not — it's about whether the page has any hard information at all. If 98% of the content is opposing sides of an issue without any attempt to compromise, people will just talk themselves in circles (e.g. these people). A concise statement of each of those kind of issues serves better, and but integrating arguments is a lot of work so it rarely gets done. The Turtle House page actually starts pretty well, so maybe it doesn't belong here. —BrentLaabs
      • I would say that "stupid" is never the criteria. An entry being deleted should be considered by most to be devoid of any value, including factual value, entertainment value or historical value. I would say the TH/ND is a Lame entry that should be heavily chopped down to become a history (and "where are they now") of the Turtle House and moved to a different entry (as should the Covell Village and Measure X entries). There is a substantial amount of verbage that has value on the page... ironically, the debate itself is of the most dubious value. — jw
  • Mission Statement
  • Orgasmatron
    • This page isn't lame at all!
      • Dude, for people who aren't 'in' on the joke (read: almost everyone), the page has little or no meaning. While I'm not saying it should be deleted, it's definitely pretty lame for most viewers. The same applies to Tarmackia.
        • Just because you don't have a sense of humor doesn't mean the page is lame. I've never worked for the Aggie, but it's still got kitsch!
          • Thank you for the personal insult. It really helps to make your argument seem more valid.

Questionable

  • Area Codes (added Feb 13, 2006)

    not quite sure why Area Codes is necessary... it's not like Davis is broken into multiple area codes; can't we just include our area code on the Davis page? I'll check back in about a week to see if there's any opposition to deleting the Area Codes page unless somebody thinks it's deserving of a longer wait. —AlphaDog

    While it is true that I fixed it so that it's at least correct, I tend to agree. It's below the threshold of mentioning that Davis has 7-digit dialing, and otherwise, there's not much to say. —DanielBrown

One reason to keep area codes is for the historical changes that they went through. Davis used to be in the 916 area code. — JasonAller

Philip, and anyone else who cares: I resurrected Area Codes after I examined it, saw that a lot of people had put serious work into it, and felt that a unilateral deletion was unwarranted. I can imagine it being useful to someone who comes to UCD from outside the area, perhaps outside the country. One could even argue whether pages about pay phone numbers or Internet addresses are as useful as a page on area codes. There are far worse pages than this one, and at the cost of saving a couple kilobytes, it seemed like an easy decision. BTW, it should be delisted from this page too. —SteveDavison

The deletion was not unilateral: There was a posting here (for a week), and discussion on the page itself, and no one objected — everyone who commented agreed to delete the page. (As far as my caring, I don't, I just wanted to add it back to this page because it was removed on the grounds that the page was deleted). —PhilipNeustrom

I created area codes just to document the ones in the immediate area, 530, 916 and 707. I don't see the point in having the whole state listed. —ArlenAbraham

  • cool spot is an example of a page that should be deleted when Davis Houses gets deleted. This (latter) page has such an I-huff-scotch-guard-fumes feel to it, and besides, how can it have any legitimacy when it doesn't even list IHOP?
    • Davis Houses lists public music and party venues where notable events (such as certain bands playing) occurred. That's an argument for keeping Davis Houses... and an argument (unless they have done more than is currently listed) against cool spot.
  • Bicycle Rides — While it's a fantastic entry, there is the rather important point that fully half of it is a copy/paste from another website. :( On the other hand, Ken's website was written by a wikizen, if I recall correctly, so it is possible they contributed their original work? —JabberWokky
  • Energy Healing — some say unsalvagable, but it seems reasonable that there's a slice of Davis that believe in, practice and are interested in this.
  • Lame Wiki Pages - In theory, this page shouldn't exist, perhaps it should be just [“community discussion”], I dunno, it just seems rather silly to have a page with a rather redundant purpose.
  • List of Pull-Up Bar Locations
  • Memorable Quotes - This page is going to fill up fast with "memorable" stuff. Yes, professors can occasionally make us laugh. Worth a page that might just grow with fans?
  • Upsilon Sigma Alpha - Any group can register with SPAC. Lame.

Desperately in need of some hot gnome lovin'

Stubs and Starting Points

These pages are a little skimpy — they need more content or just a better writeup. Help them. They are good ideas, just need a bit more content.

Copy and Paste Jobs

Is there a way to reverse includes — to see what entries include Copy/Paste?

Jumble of Conversation

  • Covell Village/Talk — Somebody really needs to go through and move anything useful over, kill the rest.

Discussion

2005-12-03 17:20:16   I think the lamest pages on the wiki are the ones that are essentially pages for people (UserPages) that have absolutely no content on them. There are some bad examples of pages that don't have anything informative. I think that's pretty lame. —JohnDudek

2005-12-04 00:43:54   Sam's/Politics is relevent to some extent, however it could definitely be pared down to a summary of both sides' points, to remove the pointless bickering. The only real question is if that is done, would it be worth putting on the main page, or keeping it seperate. —JosephBleckman

2005-12-04 15:30:22   Nobody forces people to read these so-called lame pages. One man's junk is another man's treasure. I think they should be left for further development, rather than deleted because certain individuals think they can force their values onto the entire wiki community. In fact, I think this general lack of temperance with the delete command is making the wiki lame. —JaimeRaba

If a so-called lame page has been there a while with no development, deleting is appropriate. If nothing else, it puts that page on the Recent Changes, possibly catching someone's eye who might want to update it. "Certain individuals" have no more power than any other individuals; as a consequence, consensus going to prevail in edits. This is by design in Wikipedias as a general rule. —DomenicSantangelo

There is no reason why consensus would prevail. Obviously more people than you want to see these pages remain, but you persist in deleting them. —JaimeRaba

I'm inclined to agree with you— if someone took the time to make a creative page, its worthy of sticking around. I think the wiki is stable enough at this point that we should be encouraging more creativity, even if no one else has a clue that it all means. At the same time, I think we should keep track of any historically, but no longer currently, important pages— a list will at least prevent them from disappearing gfrom the radar.— CraigBrozinsky

I totally agree. The keyword being creative. Is this creative? —ds

No reason for consensus to prevail? You must misunderstand the fundamentals of the Wiki. And in case you forgot, 1 is equal to 1, not greater than it. —ds

It's entirely unclear to me whether it's consensus that actually prevails in edits, or persistance. It is better for the Wiki if it's consensus, but it takes skill and effort from all of us to make sure the best ideas rather than the loudest or most repeated ones prevail. Sometimes this includes coaxing ideas from those too shy to speak up often. I am not yet convinced we collectively have the necessary combination of skill and effort for this. If we are not careful, the Wiki will be dominated by the most persistant users, and everyone else will give up and leave. This would be sad. (Could someone please find a better home for this comment? Thanks.) —AlexanderWoo

Consensus should prevail: we should discuss our edits when in disagreement and seek to work toward a common solution. However, there are situations where discussion and consensus-building does not take place, and persistance pervails over discussion. As you mention, some are reluctant to participate in debate or discussion of their edits. Our challenge is to find a way to encourage consensus in the editing process, while still allowing for freedom to edit. What can we do to make this more of a reality? Are there situations in which consensus cannot be reached? If so, how should we deal with these situations?

Lacking consensus, you should respect other peoples opinion, entertain the idea that you are wrong, and move on with life. I do it all the time - it's liberating. —ChristopherMckenzie

Don't kill one of my babies. —ChristopherMckenzie on the KDVS discussion.

Add tags