Battlestar Wiki talk:Think Tank/Links Discretion: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 03:04, 14 July 2006

Oppose - Refer to Battlestar Wiki talk:Citation Jihad/Archive02 --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 16:52, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

Thought

I think Merv is in the right direction with this. While it has never been codified anywhere, we are an encyclopedia and episode guide -- and we are not a repository for links. Wikipedia itself has something similar: "Wikipedia is not a repository of links". Furthermore, I wouldn't mind having people scrutinize links for inclusion. For instance, editors will question an edit that is questionable and not sourced correctly, so why should we treat web links any differently? -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 21:56, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

The BW:CP is defined for purposes of possaible links. If we were to follow the suggestion of questioning all the links provided minus the offfical sites. Having a "Nicki "Cally" Clyne Fan Site" doesn't have any encyclopedia value. "Battlestar Helios (RPG)" - we don't use an fan fiction information. RPG is non encyclopedia. We do it to one, we do it to all. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 22:04, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

Revision as of 02:56, 14 July 2006 view source Joe Beaudoin Jr. (talk \| contribs) Senior Chiefs, Marines, Interface administrators, interwiki, Sponsors, CAP, Chiefs 62,846 edits thought ← Older edit		Revision as of 03:04, 14 July 2006 view source Shane (talk \| contribs) Senior Chiefs, Marines, interwiki, Sponsors, CAP, Chiefs 17,616 edits →‎Thought: reply Newer edit →
Line 4:		Line 4:

	I think Merv is in the right direction with this. While it has never been codified anywhere, we are an encyclopedia and episode guide -- and we are not a repository for links. Wikipedia itself has something similar: [[Wikipedia:WP:NOT\|"Wikipedia is not a repository of links"]]. Furthermore, I wouldn't mind having people scrutinize links for inclusion. For instance, editors will question an edit that is questionable and not sourced correctly, so why should we treat web links any differently? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 21:56, 13 July 2006 (CDT)		I think Merv is in the right direction with this. While it has never been codified anywhere, we are an encyclopedia and episode guide -- and we are not a repository for links. Wikipedia itself has something similar: [[Wikipedia:WP:NOT\|"Wikipedia is not a repository of links"]]. Furthermore, I wouldn't mind having people scrutinize links for inclusion. For instance, editors will question an edit that is questionable and not sourced correctly, so why should we treat web links any differently? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 21:56, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

			: The [[BW:CP]] is defined for purposes of possaible links. If we were to follow the suggestion of questioning all the links provided minus the offfical sites. Having a "Nicki "Cally" Clyne Fan Site" doesn't have any encyclopedia value. "Battlestar Helios (RPG)" - we don't use an fan fiction information. RPG is non encyclopedia. We do it to one, we do it to all. --[[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 22:04, 13 July 2006 (CDT)