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

Revision as of 14:23, 21 July 2006

Support -- The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 23:00, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

Oppose - Refer to Battlestar Wiki talk:Citation Jihad/Archive02 --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 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. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 23:00, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

Thought[edit]

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)

I agree. Every site should be evaluated and treated equally. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 22:11, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

They should. Btw as for the Nicki Clyne site, she actually knows about that site and sent them pics of herself and such (that's where I got the pic used in her bio page) so it's sort of her "unnoficial official site", so it should stay. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 22:23, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

So if someone from the cast should submit something to any site it should stay? --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 22:29, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

Well yes, like the Aaron Douglas and Michael Trucco sites; generally, so long as a messageboard has like 5-10 active users posting it's okay. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 22:34, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

By "determine the merit of a site", I mean simply determine if only 1 or 2 people use a site, and we should remove sites that like 1 person posts up. ----->Messageboards, fanfic sites, official cast sites, etc. etc. shouldn't be removed or anything due to their content. This is purely trying to remove websites that have so few users they're minor sites and it's not worth having them.--The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 22:54, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

What made me think of this proposal was when someone came on and added "SciFi2U Battlestar Info and Episodes", which is a short page just re-listing info from elsewhere which I think 1 or 2 people made (look at it) and I want to make sure stuff of that kind is removed in the future. On the whole, Most if not all of our site links since about last week were fine, I meant this as mostly a precautionary measure for the future--The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 22:57, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

Just so I got it out of my head... while I was watching x-files, this thought came by... if that website you removed got more than him working on it.. it could be a good site. Disquilifing a site based on it's content. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 00:14, 14 July 2006 (CDT)

If a sufficient number of people use a site, we shouldn't remove it. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 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. --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". --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 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? --Peter Farago 11:48, 14 July 2006 (CDT)

All Links Right Now[edit]

These are all the links... and I am just marking them with {{Support}} and {{Oppose}} if this were going to happen.

Fan Sites

   * GateWorld's BSG News Page  Support Sometimes has sources info
   * Galactica Station  Oppose Repeat of the same news on from Offical Site
   * Jammer's Reviews  Oppose We do our own reviews
   * Galactica Centar (Croatian)  Oppose Repeat of the same news on from Offical Site
   * Battlestar Fan Club - Germany  Oppose just like us, but in Germen
   * International Battlestar Galactica Topsites  Oppose Offline
   * Caprica City (German)  Oppose Belive it or not, they Mirror BSG Wiki here is an example
   * Battlestar Blog  Oppose Personal Blog
   * Battlestar Helios (RPG)  Oppose Fan Fiction Not Allowed Already
   * Battlestar Libra RPG  Oppose Fan Fiction Not Allowed Already
   * Colonial Defence Forces  Oppose RPG Fan Fiction Not Allowed Already
   * SciFi2U Battlestar Info and Episodes  Oppose Slight Guide
     (edit)

Discussion Sites

   * Ragnar Anchorage Battlestar Forum  Oppose Community Talk
   * Hangar Deck 5  Oppose Community Talk
   * Galactica BS  Oppose Community Talk
   * Galactica Forum at Media Blvd  Oppose Community Talk
   * Aaron "Chief Tyrol" Douglas Forum on Media Blvd  Oppose Community Talk
   * Nicki "Cally" Clyne Fan Site  Oppose Just fan created photos
   * Battlestar Galactica live fan chat  Support drawing people in live discussions
   * Galactica Command Center  Oppose Community Talk
   * Pegasus Actual BSG forum  Oppose Community Talk
     (edit)

Offical Sites

   * RDM's Battlestar Blog  Support 
   * SciFi Channel's Official Battlestar Site  Support
   * Sky One's Official Battlestar Site  Support
     (edit)

This clears alot of links from the database to sort. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 22:30, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

Shane I don't think you understand: yes, we want to provide links so people can find BSG fansites. Yes, Caprica-City is like the only big German fansite: I disagree with this high level of stuff to remove: What I meant by "merit" was determine if like 2 people use a website, which means its so small it should be deleted. You were really overzealous with this. You even opposed official actor sites like Aaron Douglas' site, and a LARGE FAN FORUM, "Hangar Deck 5". --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 22:51, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

This is just my interpertation from your guidelines. These ideas are not set in stone. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 23:47, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

Consensus[edit]

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).--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. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 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. --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.--The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 09:23, 21 July 2006 (CDT)

Revision as of 19:59, 20 July 2006 view source April Arcus (talk \| contribs) Chiefs 8,475 edits No edit summary ← Older edit		Revision as of 14:23, 21 July 2006 view source The Merovingian (talk \| contribs) 7,455 edits →‎Consensus Newer edit →
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)