Forum:CT:Major and Minor Fansites

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Major and Minor Fansites


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 inconclusive, but see Forum:"Notable" fansites. —Silly Dan (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The current consensus on articles regarding fan sites is that major sites have their own article while minor sites are only listed on the List of fan sites article.

I'd like to propose that we allow all Star Wars fan sites to have their own article on Wookieepedia, provided that:

  • they have their own proper domain name. Eg. not geocities.com/luke_skywalker's_eye_color.
  • they will be categorized under "Minor fan sites", keeping "Major fan sites" reserved for TFN, etc.

There is no harm in having articles for the smaller sites. It might actually be beneficial; better for community relations at any rate. We can still be encyclopedic while maintaining a good relationship with the entire Star Wars community.

Let's hold a vote.

Minor fan sites should have their own articles, provided that they have a proper domain name, and will fall under the "Minor fan sites" category.

Support

  1. Azizlight 04:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. SFH 04:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Ozzel 04:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. —Darth Culator (talk) 05:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dark Spork 05:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. KEJ 09:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Adamwankenobi 09:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. MyNz 10:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Sith Lord Remi 03:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 13:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  11. YwingEmpress 23:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. —Silly Dan (talk) 06:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. CooperTFN 04:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Breathesgelatin 09:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 12:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 13:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. SparqMan 04:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. No. Stick to the list page. -Finlayson 17:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Sentry [Talk] 06:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  9. LtNOWIS 07:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  10. Definately not. There are way too many SW fansites out there, especially when you count all the minor ones. When it all comes down to it, the basic purpose in behind allowing both major and minor fansites have their own articles will turn to be a way to advertise one's site. —Mirlen 21:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose, see comments. RMF 23:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  12. I've seen so much stupidity in the intervening 4 months that I don't know how I ever thought this was a good idea. Darth Culator 00:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Oh, I've lost track by now what's minor and what's not. We were a minor site once, so let's give them a chance. -- SFH 04:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with letting them each have one page. But if they start spreading like fungus, with their members posting vanity articles about their forum leaders and their game modifications and such, they must be smacked down. —Darth Culator (talk) 05:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree; only one article per minor website. If they begin making articles about their members, mods, etc, they will just be redirected and locked to their main article. --Azizlight 05:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't mean to hijack this, but can we consolidate SWCCGPC.com, Players Committee, Writing Team, Mike Carr, DeckTech.net, Virtual Set 1, and Virtual Cards into one article? It's one fansite which I had never heard about until they started spamming here, and they grew like a cancer into seven separate articles. That's about eight more articles than they need. —Darth Culator (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm tentatively for this, as it means I get one for CJ, but I agree with SFH that you're going to see folks being less than nuetral over their own sites. There's already some of that (minor) in the list that I've been meaning to clean up. I agree that we should limit it to sites with their own domains, but one issue we're going to run into is relevance to different parts of the fandom. For instance, for costumers, Padawan's Guide is a major site. But I suppose that's something we could hash out case-by-case on talk pages. -- Dark Spork 05:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Either a site is notable, and is worth an article, or it's not, and it doesn't. It seems to me that this sort of policy could double debates: in addition to arguing over whether or not a website is notable enough for an article, people will argue over whether it's major or minor. —Silly Dan (talk) 06:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It won't make things any worse than they are now. Anyone will be able to add their site provided they meet the domain name criteria. No hassles. Wookieepedians will then come in and categorize the sites as either minor or major; the webmasters of the sites probably won't even care, let alone notice. If Wookieepedians are divided on whether it's major or minor, then they can run a vote. Or perhaps all fansites should be lumped into one Fansite category, regardless of size/type/popularity; that would certainly make things easier. --Azizlight 06:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I can see lots of enormous vanity articles coming from this. Also, on the other end of the spectrum, I don't think having a domain name is a definitive way of determining whether a site's noteworthy. There are as many good non-domain sites are there are awful domain sites. CooperTFN 04:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, there are some sites that are noteworthy because of how awful they are ... coughsupercoughshadowcough! KEJ 09:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
      • It has to be clear that this is not a license to advertise . . . there was a VFD debate about "Dark Jedi Brotherhood," and while the subject would be ok under the new standard, the article would not be ok. It was far from encyclopedic, and in fact almost switched to from "the members of Dark Jedi Brotherhood" to "we at Dark Jedi Brotherhood." Such articles are of poor quality and run against the NPOV view.--Erl 15:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Agreed, but then, rather than deleting the article, it's our job to rewrite and give it an NPOV nature. The reason why I am against deleting articles about gaming communities (and other types of communities) is that, no matter how insignificant, they are part of the SW-subculture and therefore their existence should be documented in the SW-culture part of Wookieepedia. But you're right, such articles have to be encyclopaedic and NPOV. KEJ 10:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't really understand the difference between "minor" and "major" site, but I think using the domain name is a poor indicator. Content and noteworthiness should be the defining factors, their address isn't relevant. --Rudy 03:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I think that if this passes (as it seems likely to do), we need to resolve standards for major vs. minor sites.--Erl 00:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I think we should leave it as it is but I'll abstain Huntersquid 20:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I see lots of problems with this policy.
  1. This gives domain name site owners/admins a licence to advertize. By this I mean that most site owners (I hesitate to say all, because there are exceptions) probably don't know the rules/policies here, and they will come here for the sole purpose of creating an article to advertize for their site, and then work exclusively on that article. If this passes, we need to lay down some rules regarding formatting for these articles. (i.e. no lengthy history sections, no advertising for other sites, and no masses of external links)
  2. Domain names =/= site quality or notability.
  3. Who are we to say which sites are major and which are minor? Creating distinctions like that tend to create bad blood. Besides, we're supposed to record notability, not create it. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 12:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm with StarNeptune on this one. There are plenty of opportunities for enterprising Star Wars fan site creators to advertise and link, but that should not be our role. At most, we could create a link page with no barrier to entry for Star Wars fan sites and message boards as a service to users interested in seeking new places to geek out. --SparqMan 04:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • But why would we want to do that? Aren't we trying to keep people here? I agree with what Star says about confusion as to what is major and minor. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Increasing Wikia's advertisement impressions is not our primary task, so keeping people here by any means (including allowing trash articles on no-name SW fansites) isn't something for which we should strive. --SparqMan 17:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Per SparqMan. —Mirlen 21:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Allowing every minor fansite to have their own article would rapidly get out of control. As it is, articles on fansites already seem to be magnets for heavy IP editing/vandalism, and often seem more like an advertisement for the site rather than a NPOV description. Allowing carte blanche in this area would turn into an article neutrality nightmare. Although the domain name distinction is crude, it does serve some purpose in negating extremely minor sites (such as Geocities subpages and whatnot). And, although the distinction between major and minor is highly subjective (and often prone to being gray), we can still set down a basic framework as there isn't really another viable option. When evaluating fansites, I usually look for evidence of (a) longevity, (b) recent and consistent updates/activity, and (c) a sizable user/reader base. Google tests can also be indicative. One unfortunate byproduct of a notability-based policy is that the article's authors (often unaware of our policies) take VfDs personally, or as an attack against their site (such as the recent Shadowscourge VfD). Hopefully, this can be avoided in the future by increasing the exposure of our deletion policy (perhaps via some sort of template to go on every VfD voting page). Thoughts? RMF 23:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, I created {{vfdsock}} shortly after the 'scourge incident. Dunno if it's good enough, though. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 00:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)