Thank you and dreggsu for all your work here. I certainly agree that things are very different now and should have a diferent Notability Standard after that point. Things are so different that you may find there are new ways of being Notable, so by all means include them if you find it so.
In my experience a lot of people who are wrapped up in the Chat don't realise what a tiny part of Newgrounds' traffic that is, so we used to have people who might post all day and hardly anyone was reading them but think they or their friends were SO big !
I would point out that I wouldn't allow someone to make a page about ME, so I had no difficulty removing their Pages about a submission that had one Turd or something !
Unless either Wikigrounds gets to be much more Notable, or I achieve Big Notability for something in the outside world, I can;t see that I should ever have one, so you carry on wiping away lame pages, by fairly sticking to logical criteria- after all, when they HAVE achieved what WE call Notability, they will be much more proud of it. Although Fire was the true Founder, I know some people do respect my name in this context, so don't hesitate to quote me if it seems appropriate :)
I would say, based on my years of experience, both here and on Wikipedia (where I go by the same name), that Stubs are FINE, provided we can see that there IS enough to say, even if nobody has yet written it. I am a Wikidragon and I slap together pages quickly sometimes, then other Wikignomes like Salnax would come and build on them.
I missed Salnax, and his vanishing was part of why I left- I felt there wasn't much point- not many would read what we wrote but we inspired each other.
At 12/24/23 06:27 PM, Anonymous-Frog wrote:At 12/24/23 06:13 PM, dreggsu wrote:Hi, DrEgg5u here.
I've added a new header for the homepage, based on the current one.
By the way, what do you think of the Notability Standarts? Should they be changed?
These were written on 2011 (12 years ago) and very much has changed since then. For example, the minimum for an submission to be considered "Notable" was 500K and this was understandable, for example Warriors of The Portal (released 2011, that same year) has 600K, but nowadays, most popular submissions have less a third than that, for example FulpWare, which got both Daily and Weekly featues and is 7th on the Best Of All Time section of the portal, has nothing but 140K. For a game example: Rushdown Rivals, which also got the same awards + a Review Crew Pick, and is on the "Legendary Games" section, has almost the same count of views: 130K. Newgrounds is much less popular than what it used to be back then, and it is almost impossible for a submission to reach such a number.
These standarts weren't at all defined: Some pages say the minimum should be half a million, others say they should be a million, and others over a million.
On the talk page of the Candidates for Deletion page, someone added this topic, which talks more about it, and also proposes which could be the new standarts considering what is NG state. Recommend reading.
Im asking this here to see what you think, and to avoid possible backlash.
These standards may still work for submissions published before 2011. Lowering the view count for newer submissions could help, but may open the gates for less-popular flashes from NG's peak years.
Example: The Madness of Madness! from 2005 has up to 150K views, more than FulpWare, but nowhere near as notable. Same deal with Spongebob Theme Backwards. Just as many views, no awards, not even Turd like B has.
I accounted for this when writing new Notability guidelines for the new wiki,
I also accounted for collabs that may win awards, as the bar for entry is lower than it was 15 years ago.
We are the Dragons & Spirits. We are friendly people. Best Wishes, Ice!
