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 not to ban listing fansites. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 23:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, I haven't really digged through the wikia rules but if we don't allow fanon onto these boards, why do we have links on some pages to fansites about particular characters that could contain fanon? I don't mean to demean the fansites because some have put a good amount of work into them but it just seems out of place these links. Just my two cents, I'm not out to offend anyone because it's not like my opinion on the characters outweighs theirs.--Anguirus111 05:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• I don't care for most of the linked sites. Many of them simply suck horribly. But believe me, it's an uphill battle. Graestan^(Talk) 05:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • We really shouldn't. I can accept linking to major, informative sites such as CUSWE, but linking to "Shrine to Jaina Solo," etc. is just worthless. --Imperialles 10:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Imp, the reason that "The Other Side of the Sky" is linked on Jaina Solo is because I found useful "Behind the scenes" on there and included it in the article after gaining permission of the owner. The link was already there and I figured it was helpful enough for me. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 03:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I think we should be judicious about them, but not ban them outright. Some have generally useful behind the scenes info which we cite in our articles; others are more informative, either because we haven't completed the articles in question or because we are restricted by our own format. jSarek 11:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm going to go ahead and make a proposal that would limit the use of fansite links in a manner that if the articles on which they are placed do not cite them as sources, they cannot be listed. The wording would be something like:

"Links to fansites, aside from links to CUSWE articles or relevant TF.N information, do not belong on the wiki except in cases where they are cited as sources for the articles, i.e. if an author or other notable comments on the site in a way that provides information not found elsewhere."

The corresponding definition could be put forth in support:

"Fansites are defined as any non-official site run by fans of the franchise or any aspect of it, who are not officially connected to Star Wars in any way."

Thoughts? Graestan^(Talk) 19:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• It was never my intention to immediately put this issue to vote; I was fielding it to see where others stand, and how it might be refined. I do have some key points to my side of things, however:
  1. It is not anyone's intention to ban all fansites, or anything extreme and crusadey like that. I strongly urge anyone who thinks this to simply read what's here before stating such in a vote.
  2. If there is something to be added from the fansite, by all means, do it, and then simply cite the fansite as a source. This has worked great for BtS in the past, and I am all for it.
  3. There is no reason besides plain and simple advertising to link another site without using their information somehow, as we are an encyclopedia and should be more than capable than reading and referencing such information on our own. There really should be some sort of agreement with the sites in question (we link you, then you must link us) if we aren't going to use the information, which we should be, anyhow.
• Basically, this provision is urging those who add such links to actually use the information from them in the articles, and cite them. "Banning fan sites" is not the intention, especially considering that we are one, also. I just want to bolster the notion that we are an encyclopedia which is professional in appearance and function. Laziness of editors should not be pointed to as a reason not to use and cite the information. Get creative, people! Graestan^(Talk) 16:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • In fact, I'd really like to invite all parties to discuss this, rather than simply vote or debate. Graestan^(Talk) 16:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    • "It is not anyone's intention to ban all fansites, or anything extreme and crusadey like that." I wouldn't be too sure. -- Ozzel 22:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
      • It certainly isn't my intention; I simply dislike the idea of the site being used as a link farm, which has an air of advertisement. Graestan^(Talk) 23:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

SupportEdit

1. Aren't we pretty much doing this already? Gonk ^(Gonk!) 22:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Imperialles 22:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
   • Assuming this does not include the legitimately good fansites (like Modi's atlases) ^Jorrel_Fraajic 22:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
     • Of course it includes them; the only exceptions in the policy as written are CUSWE and TF.N. jSarek 22:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
       • That's where a subtle change in wording (a "such as," perhaps) would come in handy, to provide a loophole. Per my new reasoning above, this is more a measure to encourage use of the information instead of just advertising the sites. Graestan^(Talk) 16:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • • As Graestan said were not advertising them where telling people to go there if they want to learn other things on a certain topic. Mecenarylord 21:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

OpposeEdit

1. I still think some fansites ("legitimately good fansites," as Jorrel calls them above) make good supplemental reading to the Wook, and should be provided where warranted. jSarek 22:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
2. I don't see the need to try and dictate a policy on this issue. If a specific link is irritating you, then bring it up on the article's talk page or simply try removing it (without getting into an edit war). And if you want to say that we are not willing to link to other fan sites, why would they ever want to link back to us? —Xwing328^(Talk) 00:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Until a little more leniency is provided, I cannot support. Plus, Xwing brings up good points. ^Jorrel_Fraajic 00:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Per jSarek and Xwing328. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 01:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
5. I can't support saying "no" and cutting out all fan sites, or the like. Xwing brings up a good point. Greyman ^(Talk) 01:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Absolutely not. -- Ozzel 01:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
7. No. There's no reason to limit valid links to fansites within articles. Also, if I may: "Istruction creep".--Goodwood ^{(Alliance Intelligence)} 01:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
   • For the links to be valid, I think the information in the sites should be utilized somehow. Ataru's mention above of his usage in Jaina Solo is a good example. Graestan^(Talk) 16:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Per Xwing. Let's deal with this case by case. - Lord Hydronium 00:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Per jSarek & Xwing328 - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 00:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

• I dislike linking to Fansites in general, but can understand the legitimacy in linking if something is sourced from there for a BTS. Naturally, we should try and limit these kinds of things. The proposal to limit linking in regards to instances only in which sourcing is relevant sounds good. However, I'm not sure exactly how this definition differentiates them from anyone: "Fansites are defined as any non-official site run by fans of the franchise or any aspect of it, who are not officially connected to Star Wars in any way." Perhaps just my ignorance. Are we an "official site"? As far as I'm concerned, this could just as easily be applied to the Wook. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Which is why "Wookieepedia is not a source" :) ...but really, any policy restricting fansites in any way can easily be made to include an exception to ourselves. It's our freakin' wiki. Gonk ^(Gonk!) 22:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Blanket policies FTL. If a subsection needs to be written in about the Wook, let it. ^Jorrel_Fraajic 22:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• I'm not sure about this one... We're a Fansite too, why should we not link to other fansites? But I do agree that the sites that we do link to have to be "legitimately good fansites," or that the link is at leas "usefull" to the article (example: if it's a source for Behind the scenes info). However, I don't think that banning everything except CUSWE, TF.N and things that are a source for Bts is good for this wiki, there have to be more "legitimately good fansites" sites out there. I think we should start with determining what a "legitimately good fansite" really is. --Jedimca0^{(Do or Do Not, There is No Try)} 17:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• What about some of the official friend fansites? I would expect them to fall under the same banner as TFN and CUSWE links. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 23:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Here's the thing. I think some fansites are worth reading, even if they contain no new information at all with respect to the article in question. Content is only part of the reading experience - presentation also plays an important part. Everything on Wookieepedia is (ideally) presented as an encyclopedia article, written in encyclopedic style and fitting a particular format. This is a good thing - encyclopedia articles by definition should be encyclopedic in style, and a common format makes our presentation consistent for the reader. But that doesn't mean that the encyclopedic format is the only way of presenting that content, or even the best way. Sometimes, additional insight can be gained from essays, lists, maps, flowcharts, multimedia works, and other alternative forms of presenting what is basically the same content. We shouldn't be banned from judiciously linking to a few sites like these in an article. jSarek 10:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Whether or not the sites themselves are worth reading hasn't really been a point of contention in terms of making new policy; I don't want the connotation of "they're not good enough for us" to be slapped on my arguments for being more restrictive. I really want to derail that particular misunderstanding. Last night, Ozzel pointed out to me an important clause in Wikipedia:External links (a policy page I think we should mirror in some way, but likely with less restriction):

    "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."

  • Now, this is exactly what I think should be used as an external link, aside from anything citable in the articles. I'm not out to simply exclude everything but CUSWE and TF.N; in fact, Xwing's case-by-case proposal sounds rather good to me, provided I don't have other admins breathing down my neck (as has happened before) when I remove links to "shrines" or sites that present wild fan theories such as Dormékin. Perhaps, and I'm out on a limb here, we should propose more of a set of guidelines, similar to what Wikipedia has as a policy, on which links to encourage, and which to avoid. This would be a little more appropriate, and hopefully more acceptable across the board. Graestan^(Talk) 13:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I would support a guideline along that general idea. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 18:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I think a set of guidelines similar to the Wikipedia policy is a good idea. --Jedimca0^{(Do or Do Not, There is No Try)} 19:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm much more comfortable with this idea. jSarek 11:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree. If this were the original wording, I'd've supported it for longer than however long I did before. ^Jorrel_Fraajic 19:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made elsewhere.