SocialDeviancy.com/FeatureDiscussion
[[SocialDeviancy.com|]]
SocialDeviancy.com featured discussion
- Edit/Add to this Discussion
- Added to nomination process on 5 June 2007, from an old nomination that hadn't been processed.
- I for one, love that this page was nominated, in part because of the question it raises. Although the website is not pornographic in nature, it does carry and "adult" warning due to content, and I wonder whether it's appropriate to spotlight this kind of website given that AboutUs is a resource for some younger people as well as those who might be more conservative that this website might offend. While I don't personally have a problem with this stuff (and am pleased that such issues are address on the internet), is this something the AboutUs community feels should be spotlighted? --
TakKendrick | Talk
- Was this question ever resolved, Tak? It seems like an unusual amount of site for a nomination to sit idle without any resolution at all. Did the submission happen to slip through the cracks again? =( - Vaelor 23:29, 12 July 2007 (PDT)
- Hi Vaelor. Perhaps the purpose of my message last month here wasn't clear. This is the place for the discussion to take place on this. I'd been waiting for people from the community to come and discuss this here. I know that several AboutUs community members have looked at the nominees list, although no one has made a comment on this nomination or issue. And no, a month isn't an unusual amount of time on these, depending on buy-in from the community. Generally after two or three months, the discussion on featured nominations are "closed" to keep the nominees list paired down (although the option is always available to renominate pages that have been worked on).
- Was this question ever resolved, Tak? It seems like an unusual amount of site for a nomination to sit idle without any resolution at all. Did the submission happen to slip through the cracks again? =( - Vaelor 23:29, 12 July 2007 (PDT)
- I'm sorry if this has been confusing, with as many nominations as we get, once we've left a message with concerns or suggested actions to take the ball really is in the court of the WikiPage builder and community. I've been watching this page (both the main SocialDeviancy.com and the Feature Discussion) for several month and waiting for action or comment.
- If you'd like to see a good example of the kind of community discussion that can promote a page (with similar concerns), see: RFSHQ.com. -- TakKendrick | Talk 12:11, 13 July 2007 (PDT)
- Thanks for your prompt reply Tak. Obviously the community just isn't paying any attention to the nomination, or have decided it has not enough merit to even warrant a brief response. I guess it's out of my hands either way, but thanks for your consideration anyhow. - Vaelor 19:45, 13 July 2007 (PDT)
- I understand that Tak's concerns about this site's being appropriate or not to get featured are quite realistic, and also feel that some people might find it offensive. Personally however, I'd love to have it featured. Asad | *~talk~* 02:21, 24 October 2007 (PDT)
- No edits in quite some time, moving to LastChance today. TedErnst (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2008 (PST)
