Editing Battlestar Wiki talk:Think Tank/Links Discretion
Discussion page of Battlestar Wiki:Think Tank/Links Discretion
More actions
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
* {{Oppose}} - Refer to [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Citation Jihad/Archive02]] --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 16:52, 13 July 2006 (CDT) | * {{Oppose}} - Refer to [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Citation Jihad/Archive02]] --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 16:52, 13 July 2006 (CDT) | ||
**Shane, you completely misunderstand. This is not removing links based on content, and has nothing to do with that previous discussion. It's removing them based on if few (less than even 5 people) actually use a site and it's just a random fan promoting their own little pet project. Indeed, below you just said you wanted to remove EVERY fan forum we have links to...for their CONTENT, and fan fiction, for their content. BSwiki is not the place for posting fanfic, but we should provide links to major fanfic sites, so people looking for this type of thing know where to go. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 23:00, 13 July 2006 (CDT) | **Shane, you completely misunderstand. This is not removing links based on content, and has nothing to do with that previous discussion. It's removing them based on if few (less than even 5 people) actually use a site and it's just a random fan promoting their own little pet project. Indeed, below you just said you wanted to remove EVERY fan forum we have links to...for their CONTENT, and fan fiction, for their content. BSwiki is not the place for posting fanfic, but we should provide links to major fanfic sites, so people looking for this type of thing know where to go. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 23:00, 13 July 2006 (CDT) | ||
== Thought == | == Thought == | ||
| Line 32: | Line 30: | ||
:::::More of a case by case thing. What I intended was, well as you said above we used to actually discuss what stayed and what was removed one at a time: so I wanted an actual policy saying that we should do that, so it doesn't look like we're just being partial to one or another, but actualy say "if a fansite is small, doesn't offer much new info, and has few people one it, we might feel the need to remove its link". --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 09:46, 14 July 2006 (CDT) | :::::More of a case by case thing. What I intended was, well as you said above we used to actually discuss what stayed and what was removed one at a time: so I wanted an actual policy saying that we should do that, so it doesn't look like we're just being partial to one or another, but actualy say "if a fansite is small, doesn't offer much new info, and has few people one it, we might feel the need to remove its link". --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 09:46, 14 July 2006 (CDT) | ||
I agree that discretion is necessary, and that some objective criterion for inclusion is desirable, however, I'm at a loss as to how we could apply that criterion fairly. Perhaps a series of straw polls here? --[[User: | I agree that discretion is necessary, and that some objective criterion for inclusion is desirable, however, I'm at a loss as to how we could apply that criterion fairly. Perhaps a series of straw polls here? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 11:48, 14 July 2006 (CDT) | ||
== All Links Right Now == | == All Links Right Now == | ||
| Line 86: | Line 84: | ||
:I agree in erring on the side of inclusiveness: I am surprised that BSGTNS was not in our links section; I saw it on the front page links, so I must not have noticed. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 09:36, 14 July 2006 (CDT) | :I agree in erring on the side of inclusiveness: I am surprised that BSGTNS was not in our links section; I saw it on the front page links, so I must not have noticed. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 09:36, 14 July 2006 (CDT) | ||
:I think we should let new additions stand as a general rule, and allow for individual links to be challenged by concerned users and voted up or down by the community. --[[User: | :I think we should let new additions stand as a general rule, and allow for individual links to be challenged by concerned users and voted up or down by the community. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 14:59, 20 July 2006 (CDT) | ||
:To extend Peter's idea, as administrators we have to maintain and uphold the policies of the wiki, which means that if we see something that adds little or is detrimental to the wiki's overall objective (that is, if the additions aren't official, are fan-fiction loaded, or commercial), then an admin can make the quick determination. However, it will take the community to spot these links for our scrutiny. This idea avoids having community voting or consensus, which can take time for an important housekeeping matter, but not one that relates to the overall content, but quality and stability, of the wiki. I don't mind having to do link checks, but I agree that we keep what links we have and scrutinize others, periodically reviewing all links. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:21, 22 July 2006 (CDT) | :To extend Peter's idea, as administrators we have to maintain and uphold the policies of the wiki, which means that if we see something that adds little or is detrimental to the wiki's overall objective (that is, if the additions aren't official, are fan-fiction loaded, or commercial), then an admin can make the quick determination. However, it will take the community to spot these links for our scrutiny. This idea avoids having community voting or consensus, which can take time for an important housekeeping matter, but not one that relates to the overall content, but quality and stability, of the wiki. I don't mind having to do link checks, but I agree that we keep what links we have and scrutinize others, periodically reviewing all links. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:21, 22 July 2006 (CDT) | ||
::Good idea. In all honesty I think only maybe 2-3 links would get dropped if this gets put into place, I just wanted it to be a formal process and impersonal.--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 09:23, 21 July 2006 (CDT) | ::Good idea. In all honesty I think only maybe 2-3 links would get dropped if this gets put into place, I just wanted it to be a formal process and impersonal.--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 09:23, 21 July 2006 (CDT) | ||