Print

[Deltafire]

I don't think an article on modarchive would help much - they could argue that modarchive is a primary source being the forums are hosted here.
[ Edit: "Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article" ]

Milkytracker has been mentioned in some hard-copy music magazines and PC magazines also as DasKreestof has mentioned on that discussion page, however I can't remember the magazine names and have no idea if there is an online copy that can be referenced.

Wikipedia has a blind spot for anything that could be considered 'underground' such as the tracker scene, IRC, anything that doesn't obtain main-stream media attention (for example, look up the page on Idle-RPG, a 'game' that appears on virtually every IRC network but which Wikipedia refuse acknowledge existence of!).  Really, it annoys me - we have a well-written and useful page for Milkytracker, but all that can be gone on the whim of a few arrogant Wikipedia editors.

/rant

[m0d]

I don't even know how to add a vote to that page.

[Deltafire]

Click on the "edit this page" tab at the top.

[m0d]

Then what? Lots of scary looking markup text? Meh.

[Deltafire]

Deleted.  There were 4 votes to delete and only 2 (DasKreestof and myself) voted to keep it.

Btw, it has been deleted because it is deemed not notable, there are a lack of secondary reliable sources (sources not affiliated with MilkyTracker).  I could only find two secondary sources, and I don't think they were classed as 'reliable' sources according to Wikipedia's guidelines.

[Saga Musix]

I find it very suspicious that MilkyTracker was mentioned on the FT2 page several times, but in comparison to other trackers, it was not wikified (i.e. no link to the actual, now deleted MT wiki page). I corrected that. Maybe that will be helpful when the article will be rewritten at some point.

[dysamoria]

this is why wikipedia is a piece of crap. "not notable" is AN OPINION. an encyclopedia is to be a collection of facts and information, not opinions. there is so much stuff on wikipedia that is "not notable" or is "fringe" and "QUESTIONABLE" and only there because of lemming-like attention (which != notability).

the wikimedia tool is user-unfriendly non-WYSIWYG overwrought hackerish crap. the wikipedia community is a bunch of arrogant ****s, and the rules are both restricting, ignored depending on the topic, and handled totally arbitrarily. if there's attention on something, it gets messed with. if there's no one paying attention to something, it stays there and/or stays inferior.

"not notable."

what a bunch of BS. i could nominate a good 15% of wikipedia's content as "not notable." half the articles i go to are slanted toward a politically correct viewpoint but remain as is (aspartame, anyone?). the other half of the articles are filled with marks about needing references yet the entries remain. unchanged.

i'm fuming. every month i find more reasons to HATE wikipedia. as a person who's done tons of research on certain topics, i have found really poor facts and lack of references to direct statements in many articles... yet, no one pays them note because the "community" isn't interested in those topics.

the end result is that it's not "community" driven; it's a popularity contest and a little world of "me can has that factoid too! (copy copy copy from other sources....)."

i've contributed. i've had things deleted. i've attempted to discuss and been ignored. i've made moderately small changes to things i have expertise on... still... i am NOT part of that so-called "community" and the way the elitist pigs there behave, i'll never want to be.

you know what's NOTABLE? how CRAPPY the attitudes of wikipedia editors are. can we make an article about how wikipedia is a great example of anti-social personality disorders demonstrated by groups of humans acting as an entity?

[Deltafire]

Nice rant

I completely agree with you on most of the points you have made, and was going to add a rant of my own until I noticed I have already done so

[dysamoria]

@ Deltafire: hah! glad you appreciated my rant. sometimes i just have to blow off steam. when i saw the BS about wiki and the attempts over a few years to get an article about Milky Tracker on there... i just blew up. it's not like Milky is my girlfriend who just got insulted by a random jerk on the street ... yet i take it personally because of experience with wiki. it's not what it claims to be. any place where that kind of thing happens (reality != to claim), i just kinda blow up, especially at people or organizations that make claims of "high ideals" like wikipedia does. peh.

[DasKreestof]

I thought the MilkyTracker article was excellent. I was really proud of the work that I and the cloud of contributers put together. I felt like someone vandalized and destroyed a treasured object when that gang of ignorant thugs deleted it.