Battlestar Wiki talk:Think Tank/Links Discretion - Revision history

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

2020-04-11T01:54:34Z

Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:54, 11 April 2020
Line 32:		Line 32:
	:::::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:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 11:48, 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:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 11:48, 14 July 2006 (CDT)

	== All Links Right Now ==		== All Links Right Now ==
Line 86:		Line 86:
	: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:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 14:59, 20 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:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 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)

CalculatinAvatar: support

2006-07-24T09:33:54Z

support

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:33, 24 July 2006
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)

			*{{support}} Leaving links to sites with 3-4 users makes the wiki look... unprofessional. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar\|CalculatinAvatar]]<sup>([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar\|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar\|T]])</sup> 04:33, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

	== Thought ==		== Thought ==

Spencerian: /* Consensus */

2006-07-22T19:21:17Z

Consensus

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:21, 22 July 2006
Line 85:		Line 85:

	: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)		: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)

	::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)

The Merovingian: /* Consensus */

2006-07-21T14:23:40Z

Consensus

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:23, 21 July 2006
Line 85:		Line 85:

	: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)		: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)

			::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)

April Arcus at 19:59, 20 July 2006

2006-07-20T19:59:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:59, 20 July 2006
Line 83:		Line 83:
	In the past this is something that was mostly left to consensus. That is to say, not that we had votes (with "keep"s and "delete"s and reasonable discourse) but that sites that needed to be added would tend to be added (or re-added) and sites that didn't need to be there would tend to be removed. I guess if a "universal linking metric" need be applied, I would err on the side of inclusiveness, especially since real estate isn't much of a problem in the CP, and that there hasn't been much abuse of the system thus far. Oh, and I'm going to add BSGTNS.com to the list (we've got it on the front page but not in the links area).--[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 06:55, 14 July 2006 (CDT)		In the past this is something that was mostly left to consensus. That is to say, not that we had votes (with "keep"s and "delete"s and reasonable discourse) but that sites that needed to be added would tend to be added (or re-added) and sites that didn't need to be there would tend to be removed. I guess if a "universal linking metric" need be applied, I would err on the side of inclusiveness, especially since real estate isn't much of a problem in the CP, and that there hasn't been much abuse of the system thus far. Oh, and I'm going to add BSGTNS.com to the list (we've got it on the front page but not in the links area).--[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 06:55, 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 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:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 14:59, 20 July 2006 (CDT)

Steelviper: Battlestar Wiki talk:Thank Tank/Links Discretion moved to Battlestar Wiki talk:Think Tank/Links Discretion: Thank->Think

2006-07-14T19:51:25Z

Battlestar Wiki talk:Thank Tank/Links Discretion moved to Battlestar Wiki talk:Think Tank/Links Discretion: Thank->Think

← Older revision	Revision as of 19:51, 14 July 2006
(No difference)

April Arcus: /* Thought */

2006-07-14T16:48:03Z

Thought

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:48, 14 July 2006
Line 29:		Line 29:

	:::::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:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 11:48, 14 July 2006 (CDT)

	== All Links Right Now ==		== All Links Right Now ==

The Merovingian: /* Thought */

2006-07-14T14:46:50Z

Thought

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:46, 14 July 2006
Line 27:		Line 27:

	::::Is there any way for us to track that? I know we can tell how many people hit a given article/etc. here, but I don't know how to quantify how many people click given links. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 09:42, 14 July 2006 (CDT)		::::Is there any way for us to track that? I know we can tell how many people hit a given article/etc. here, but I don't know how to quantify how many people click given links. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 09:42, 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)

	== All Links Right Now ==		== All Links Right Now ==

Steelviper: /* Thought */ link click tracking?

2006-07-14T14:42:14Z

Thought: link click tracking?

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:42, 14 July 2006
Line 25:		Line 25:

	:::If a sufficient number of people use a site, we shouldn't remove it. --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian\|E]])</sup> 09:35, 14 July 2006 (CDT)		:::If a sufficient number of people use a site, we shouldn't remove it. --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian\|E]])</sup> 09:35, 14 July 2006 (CDT)

			::::Is there any way for us to track that? I know we can tell how many people hit a given article/etc. here, but I don't know how to quantify how many people click given links. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 09:42, 14 July 2006 (CDT)

	== All Links Right Now ==		== All Links Right Now ==

The Merovingian: /* Consensus */

2006-07-14T14:36:37Z

Consensus

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:36, 14 July 2006
Line 76:		Line 76:
	== Consensus ==		== Consensus ==
	In the past this is something that was mostly left to consensus. That is to say, not that we had votes (with "keep"s and "delete"s and reasonable discourse) but that sites that needed to be added would tend to be added (or re-added) and sites that didn't need to be there would tend to be removed. I guess if a "universal linking metric" need be applied, I would err on the side of inclusiveness, especially since real estate isn't much of a problem in the CP, and that there hasn't been much abuse of the system thus far. Oh, and I'm going to add BSGTNS.com to the list (we've got it on the front page but not in the links area).--[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 06:55, 14 July 2006 (CDT)		In the past this is something that was mostly left to consensus. That is to say, not that we had votes (with "keep"s and "delete"s and reasonable discourse) but that sites that needed to be added would tend to be added (or re-added) and sites that didn't need to be there would tend to be removed. I guess if a "universal linking metric" need be applied, I would err on the side of inclusiveness, especially since real estate isn't much of a problem in the CP, and that there hasn't been much abuse of the system thus far. Oh, and I'm going to add BSGTNS.com to the list (we've got it on the front page but not in the links area).--[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 06:55, 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)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:54, 11 April 2020
Line 32:		Line 32:
	:::::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:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 11:48, 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:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 11:48, 14 July 2006 (CDT)

	== All Links Right Now ==		== All Links Right Now ==
Line 86:		Line 86:
	: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:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 14:59, 20 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:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 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)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:21, 22 July 2006
Line 85:		Line 85:

	: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)		: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)

	::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)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:59, 20 July 2006
Line 83:		Line 83:
	In the past this is something that was mostly left to consensus. That is to say, not that we had votes (with "keep"s and "delete"s and reasonable discourse) but that sites that needed to be added would tend to be added (or re-added) and sites that didn't need to be there would tend to be removed. I guess if a "universal linking metric" need be applied, I would err on the side of inclusiveness, especially since real estate isn't much of a problem in the CP, and that there hasn't been much abuse of the system thus far. Oh, and I'm going to add BSGTNS.com to the list (we've got it on the front page but not in the links area).--[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 06:55, 14 July 2006 (CDT)		In the past this is something that was mostly left to consensus. That is to say, not that we had votes (with "keep"s and "delete"s and reasonable discourse) but that sites that needed to be added would tend to be added (or re-added) and sites that didn't need to be there would tend to be removed. I guess if a "universal linking metric" need be applied, I would err on the side of inclusiveness, especially since real estate isn't much of a problem in the CP, and that there hasn't been much abuse of the system thus far. Oh, and I'm going to add BSGTNS.com to the list (we've got it on the front page but not in the links area).--[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 06:55, 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 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:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 14:59, 20 July 2006 (CDT)