Forum:CT:Cleaning up the Official Friends

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Cleaning up the Official Friends

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, but at least one of the sites that doesn't link to us agreed to. Graestan(Talk) 17:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Now, I see no problem whatsoever keeping personal pages of some Star Wars authors, for the simple reason that it makes us look good, and that some authors (in particular Bob Vitas of The Completely Unofficial Star Wars Encyclopedia and Abel G. Peña) have helped our site in the past. Furthermore, other webmasters like Tracy Duncan of Club Jade are either Wookieepedians themselves or have rendered us assistance, the least of which would be that they bother to link back to us on their sites.

However, I am of a mind that some of these sites really shouldn't be on our list, for the simple fact that we're not linked to by those sites, or at least not prominently, doing us no favor whatsoever. Therefore I am putting a few such sites up on the chopping block, per se, to have their presence on our list of Official Friends voted on. Graestan(Talk) 04:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Galactic Empire Network

Only 39 hits since they first linked to us over a year ago.

Remove

  1. Mauser 05:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. Doesn't do us enough credit. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. Darth Culator (Talk) 12:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  4. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 13:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  5. Chack Jadson (Talk) 17:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  6. I feel like linking to sites that are so busily laid-out detracts from our professionalism. At least TF.N has the CUSWE/Technical Commentaries/ever-popular forums going for it. This doesn't compare, and at least the other two nominees for removal could potentially improve their standing with us by bothering to link us and going up from 0 click-throughs to probably more than 39 a year. Wildyoda 02:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  7. Weak remove, because I don't think it really hurts us or our professionalism. —Xwing328(Talk) 04:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  8. CC-2054Talk 21:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep

  1. JMAS Hey, it's me! 04:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. DC 20:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. I just don't see what we gain by dropping them as a friend, busy front page or otherwise. "Friendship" shouldn't really be about gain, anyway. jSarek 08:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  4. Meh. I'm not convinced at all that this is a good idea. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 01:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  5. Per jSarek. Green Tentacle (Talk) 02:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  6. In a good friendship, you give your friend something and you take something from your friend. What we give our friends is a simple link on our Main Page. What we take from them is a link on their homepage. If someone does not give us a link, then I have no problem with finishing the friendship, but this website gives us a link and should therefore be kept. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 22:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  7. It's not their fault if their users don't click on every link they find. --Michaeldsuarez Infinite Empire (Activate Holocron) 18:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

  • I'm reserving my vote on this one; I'd like to see how many of our users are familiar with it or perhaps found us through that site. Graestan(Talk) 04:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Since this one overwhelmingly seems like it's going to be revoked. Go ahead and revoke the status now, and with it the Galactic Empire Network article. No point really in dragging this out. I've already talked about it with the site owner. I would like to point out, that though there may have only been 39 hits from the link at GEN, there were 39 hits we would not have gotten otherwise. And, unlike the other candidates below, GEN at least did show the respect of linking back to Wookieepedia. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 21:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Please let me know when this has been done so I can remove Wookieepedia from my Affiliates list and Links sections Darth Palpy(Talk) 07:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
    • This is more a question of whether we could be linked more prominently. GAN is on our Main Page at all times. Graestan(Talk) 23:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Check GEN now and see if that's suitable. Darth Palpy(Talk) 00:09, 02 February 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I've just checked some of the other `Friends` sites and don't see prominent links TO Wookieepedia, so let's just call it quits eh guys? I'll remove Wookieepedia, you remove GEN. Thanks. Darth Palpy(Talk) 15:13, 07 February 2009 (UTC)

  • That's a little premature. At the moment our link to you would be kept as there's no consensus to remove it. Green Tentacle (Talk) 15:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Don't give up on it Palpy. Unless something drastic happens, you are and will remain an Official Friend. The way you had the link to us on your GEN was perfect. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 15:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Okay, I haven't gave up on it, just yet!. Darth Palpy(Talk) 13:04, 09 February 2009 (UTC)

Star Wars Fanboy Association

Has a "Friends & Affiliates" list on their home page that we're not even on!

Remove

Graestan(Talk) 04:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. Mauser 05:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. We don't get no respect.--Darth Oblivion 05:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  4. Imperialles 11:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
    SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 11:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  5. Cylka-talk- 11:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  6. Darth Culator (Talk) 12:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  7. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 13:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  8. Again, potential click-throughs are outweighed by idiotic-looking main page. Detracts from our professionalism to link back to them. Maybe I take us too seriously, but that's that. Wildyoda 02:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Regardless of the sophistication of their front end, I can't think of a single locus of folks with the same sort of obsessive (pardon the term) fanboyishness that we have than the SWFA. That's not even taking into account the list of SW-related accomplishments that its alumni have under their belts. jSarek 11:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Right. It doesn't all have to be about click-throughs. Being an official friend of a well-respected site, many members of which are LFL employees, surely enhances our professionalism, even if their main page is a bit basic. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 17:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep

  1. Why don't we just ask them to add us to it? I think this would definitely be a friend worth keeping if we could get that. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 15:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Attention Acky and all "per Ackys:" You're welcome to try. I can't see any way to contact them on their site, and upon checking their member list it seems like something for LFL initiates only. Graestan(Talk) 04:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually, as far as I know, they were all fanboys and SWFA members BEFORE hitting it big with LFL. As for contacting them, see below. jSarek 11:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. Per Acky. If they don't go for it, then we can remove them. Green Tentacle (Talk) 15:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. Greyman(Talk) 17:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  4. Per Acky. —Xwing328(Talk) 04:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  5. Per Acky. Heck, not even particularly per Acky - I'm happy linking to them with or without a return link. Regardless, since Acky made the initial suggestion, he can have first stab at making contact, but if he'd prefer, he can drop me a line and I'll send the mail. jSarek 11:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I too would be reasonably happy with linking to them without a return link, though obviously one is preferable. I've contacted JMM on his talk page, though I don't know how often he visits here so he may not see it for a few days. If I get no reply after a while, I'll get on to you about contacting them via email. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 17:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  6. —Silly Dan (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  7. Now that we got the link we wanted, I see no reason why we shouldn't maintain OF status. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 11:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  8. No probs with this at all. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 01:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  9. JMAS Hey, it's me! 02:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  10. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 22:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  11. --Eyrezer 22:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  12. They linked us. No issue from me anymore. Graestan(Talk) 23:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  13. Now that the link is there. --Michaeldsuarez Infinite Empire (Activate Holocron) 18:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

  • Is there anyone interested in contacting them? Then we can see if they're willing to add us. Chack Jadson (Talk) 01:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I cannot seem to find any way to e-mail them, or even to join. Graestan(Talk) 03:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I can contact one or two of the "members" to see if they know who's in charge of the site. —Xwing328(Talk) 04:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
        • As far as I know, the SWFA is almost entirely composed of a group of fans who started corresponding in the late 1990s, so joining isn't something you just sign up for (unless you have a time machine). Anyway, their site is part of Wookieepedia user JMM's webspace, so contact might not even have to require emails, though if it does, his email is available on one of the other subpages of his site as jmmcfadd2 at yahoo dot com. jSarek 11:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oddly enough, I can't seem to figure out when or why this site was added in the first place. They're not on the nomination archive. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 04:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • JMM has said that a link Wookieepedia should appear on the SWFA soon. :-) -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 18:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The SWFA site now includes a link to Wookieepedia. Not including it was just an oversight. No offense intended, folks! :) I'll try not to be offended by the comment about the idiotic-looking site... ;) --JMM 18:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you, and sorry about that comment. It was highly uncalled for and the user will be dealt with accordingly. Graestan(Talk) 23:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Tom Hodges

Does not link back to us or mention us in any way.

Remove

  1. Graestan(Talk) 04:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. I've never heard of the guy, and I don't really consider him to be a VIP. Forgive my French, but let's move above being ass-kissers. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. Per Tope.--Darth Oblivion 05:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  4. Imperialles 11:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  5. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 11:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  6. Cylka-talk- 11:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  7. I'll strike this, if this site links to us, but as long as they don't do this, I think that they should be removed, because they just take a link without giving anything back. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 22:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  8. Per everyone else. --Michaeldsuarez Infinite Empire (Activate Holocron) 18:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep

  1. I think his VIPness outweighs his non-linkeyness. Havac 04:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. Per Havac. Mauser 05:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. Let's try not deliberately alienating the authors, hmm? -- Darth Culator (Talk) 12:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  4. Greyman(Talk) 17:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  5. Weak keep, only because of his VIPness and contingent on him linking back to us. In the nomination (that link is a random part of the history that shows it, not specifically chosen for anything else) Fourdot said he "agreed" to be an official friend. I would think if you bother to say "sure, I'll be an official friend," that means linking back to us. I don't want to alienate VIPs, but I don't like being snubbed either. Wildyoda 02:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  6. —Xwing328(Talk) 04:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  7. Per Havac. DC 20:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  8. LtNOWIS 10:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  9. JMAS Hey, it's me! 02:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  10. Because of the "Who Cares" clause. Thefourdotelipsis 10:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  11. After some consideration, I really can't argue with 4dot's logic. Green Tentacle (Talk) 15:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

  • The real question is whether he'd even notice. Graestan(Talk) 17:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion