It would be excellent if - where applicable - pages could be updated to
also / instead mention Lucee. Short of Railo making a statement that they
intend to continue the project, it is doing the public a disservice to
continue to mention Railo in these contexts I think? But at the very least
they should also mention Lucee, and link back to the Lucee website.–
Adam
It would be excellent if - where applicable - pages could be updated to
also / instead mention Lucee. Short of Railo making a statement that they
intend to continue the project, it is doing the public a disservice to
continue to mention Railo in these contexts I think? But at the very least
they should also mention Lucee, and link back to the Lucee website.
David Chaplin-Loebell, IT Director
Office: (215) 843-2350 x127
Cell: (267) 971-4093On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Andrew Dixon <@Andrew_Dixon> wrote:
Ok Adam, you said you want people to actually do this stuff, well I’ve
just done 8 of the pages:
It would be excellent if - where applicable - pages could be updated to
also / instead mention Lucee. Short of Railo making a statement that they
intend to continue the project, it is doing the public a disservice to
continue to mention Railo in these contexts I think? But at the very least
they should also mention Lucee, and link back to the Lucee website.
I’m actually a bit surprised that some jerk hasn’t come along and
speedily deleted the Lucee article yet.
It would help prevent that happening if there were “reliable” sources
to prove it is “notable” - I think this can be as simple as Lucee
Association releasing a press release which tech journalists can
regurgitate on their news sites (blogs aren’t good enough), though
ideally something like that would wait for the website refresh - we
don’t want to drive people to it whilst redecorating is going on…
Right, so Lucee has to do the thing companies usually do when they do
something special: do a press release to relevant media organs?
I can’t believe my blog wasn’t good enough!!! ;-)–
Adam
On 18 February 2015 at 13:01, Peter Boughton <@Peter_Boughton> wrote:
When I added it I was expecting that to happen within minutes,
however what actually happened was a Wikipedia editor (I think)
actually came past and gave it what I think was a “thumbs up”.
Hmm, that probably helps, though looking at that user’s talk page
(User talk:VegasCasinoKid - Wikipedia) some of the
pages they had patrolled/reviewed have recently been marked as
“unreviewed” again, so seems it’s not a guarantee of safety.
(They’re not a special admin/moderator, just another user who happens
to like checking the recently created pages list.)
And worth noting that the FW/1 Wikipedia page was removed for “lack of notability” due to most references pointing back to either my blog or the FW/1 GitHub pages.
I asked for clarification ages ago and was told that blog posts don’t count for notability. So a project needs to be written about in “the press” and referenced by a number of companies that are not directly related to the project.
I asked the FW/1 community to step up and help generate that coverage since I, as project owner, couldn’t (due to the origin of notability). They didn’t so the page was deleted.
I think Lucee needs real press coverage and testimonials from companies (that aren’t directly connected to the organization(.
On Feb 17, 2015, at 16:01, Peter Boughton <@Peter_Boughton> wrote:
When I added it I was expecting that to happen within minutes,
however what actually happened was a Wikipedia editor (I think)
actually came past and gave it what I think was a “thumbs up”.
Hmm, that probably helps, though looking at that user’s talk page
(User talk:VegasCasinoKid - Wikipedia) some of the
pages they had patrolled/reviewed have recently been marked as
“unreviewed” again, so seems it’s not a guarantee of safety.
(They’re not a special admin/moderator, just another user who happens
to like checking the recently created pages list.)
Right, so Lucee has to do the thing companies usually do when they do
something special: do a press release to relevant media organs?
I can’t believe my blog wasn’t good enough!!!
–
Adam
On 18 February 2015 at 13:01, Peter Boughton <@Peter_Boughton> wrote:
When I added it I was expecting that to happen within minutes,
however what actually happened was a Wikipedia editor (I think)
actually came past and gave it what I think was a “thumbs up”.
Hmm, that probably helps, though looking at that user’s talk page
(User talk:VegasCasinoKid - Wikipedia) some of the
pages they had patrolled/reviewed have recently been marked as
“unreviewed” again, so seems it’s not a guarantee of safety.
(They’re not a special admin/moderator, just another user who happens
to like checking the recently created pages list.)
So the Lucee page has now got the notability tag - not great, but it’s
also not a speedy deletion nomination, so that’s something.
I would strongly recommend NOT adding Lucee to general purpose pages
like this one:
Doing so will only attract more attention to the page, and there’s no
benefit to doing that yet.
There are other assorted issues with the page that contribute to it also
being tagged as advertising and put in a “promotional tone” category,
which it does have.
For those working on improving the page, please take a look at the
Railo article plus other languages (PHP/Python/Ruby/etc) and see how
they give the same sort of information whilst being more encyclopaedic
about it. The difference can be subtle, but there definitely is one.
(I’m unlikely to get a chance myself to do much, but in particular those
bulleted lists need re-working.)
When I added it I was expecting that to happen within minutes,
however what actually happened was a Wikipedia editor (I think)
actually came past and gave it what I think was a “thumbs up”.
Hmm, that probably helps, though looking at that user’s talk page
(User talk:VegasCasinoKid - Wikipedia) some of the
pages they had patrolled/reviewed have recently been marked as
“unreviewed” again, so seems it’s not a guarantee of safety.
(They’re not a special admin/moderator, just another user who happens
to like checking the recently created pages list.)
I spent a few minutes neutralizing the voice, removing second-person
perspective, fixing grammatical errors, and editing for clarity. It could
still use a thorough going-over, as I didn’t have much time and I’m sure
I’ve missed some bits. And of course, critically, it does need multiple
references to outside discussion of Lucee – an existential problem that
can be reduced to Lucee needing at least a minor PR effort, even at this
early stage.On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 6:46:38 PM UTC-5, Peter Boughton wrote:
So the Lucee page has now got the notability tag - not great, but it’s
also not a speedy deletion nomination, so that’s something.
