Talk:Warriors (novel series)/Links List Discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

I did it! and I'm proud!

I wrote most (but not most) of the links for the Warriors online phenomenon, (yay). Before this precious history of Warriors online growth is lost in time, I just NEEDED to write it down! It is all very interesting and I'm proud I recorded it at a (I think) crucial moment.

-Thank ya

Advertising

I strongly object to the advertising used on this page. It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia page. The user-owned sites should be added in at the end, on "Warriors-Related Links".

I MUST AGREE

With that, but I think exceptions should be made for Warriors Wish and Hidden Clans, as these are a 'real' part of the Warriors phenomenon, but we must draw the line because there is spamming. Warriors fans (you must understand) have advertised anywhere, everywhere they could since the begining of its onling revolution that fairly so changed the face of its fanbase, growing and forming more of it. I think this trend (of spamming just about everywhere) comes from the fact that the earliest things online concerning Warriors was petitions, and fans took advantage there by signing over and over just to advertise. Even though I wrote the 'Warriors online phenomenon (not all the spamming links below) I used only nessesary links that 'really' were important to Warriors. So please, don't delete (all) the links, such as the Hidden Clans game site, Hidden Clans forum, movie petition, and more that so contributed to what we have now.

-Thank ya

^- Reply: I agree that the petition should be kept. However, I fail to understand how Hidden Clans and Warriors Wish pertain to the "phenomenon". I agree that they are quality sites, but they really should not be advertised here at all, the same as the other RPGs. Additionally, it is juvenile to include them in the "Warriors Phenomenon" section to such a great extent. To put it simply, a person who knew nothing of Warriors would not care how many members they have when they read the section; they would really only like to know about the phenomenon. Do you understand? A simple link is OK, but the rest sounds like advertisement rhetoric to me. I've shortened it and improved the grammar and spelling. Additionally, I have removed all sites from the "RPGs/Forums" that ask for more members. Shame on you. This is not a place to advertise.

Proposal

Hi everyone! My name is Oakstar, and I used to run a Warriors RPG (It's still doing well, I just have too much stuff to do my senior year!). I like this article but I am sick and tired of the shameless advertising that goes on here. It would confuse anyone interested in the series to see all those RPG's advertising all over the place, which is really not cool.

I think that only the top 5 Warriors RPGs should advertise here, and I had an idea to find out the top ones. What if I (Or anyone else who can promise to remain active) created a Proboards message-board and sites submitted their URLs and descriptions to the admin? Then, the admin would pick the top 20 sites that they liked and put them on a poll. Members would be free to vote for whichever site they thought was the best. There would be a new poll every week, so the list would be up-to-date. Then, the admin(s?) would post the top 5 winners for that week and THEN those RPGs would be allowed to post their links here.

I think that's fair--I mean, every person who has advertised on the article has obviously had the best interests of Wikipedia users, right? Thus, it should be no problem to present them with quality RPG material. I doubt my old RPG would ever make it on there (it only has about 150 members); that's not why I'm doing this. But the free-for-all that is the sad state of the links list is just plain despicable. What do you guys think? As far as I can tell, it's the best idea we've got to date. ^-^

I don't agree with the proposal

I have an RPG site, and I have joined lots of others. If you did what you were proposing, it will bring far too many members to those already overpopulated sites. One site I am at is Hidden Clans. They have so many members, they are close to an overload of members, even just in the past week, twice they had about 60 guests on the site at once, and no, I am not over exagerating. They even asked me to delete the paragraph about them here, to help bring their guest numbers under control. Also, some new sites are rapidly gaining interest, like mine. They get at least five more members every week, more than some of the older ones. They might not have over 100 members, but chances are, they will soon. I agree about some of the advertising, and think all of the advertising should be kept to the bottom of the page, not anywhere else, as they keep popping up everywhere, spoiling the page.

Me either. Besides, they would just delete it.

No offense, but I've been on a site that has had 789 members on at once. 24.183.40.221 15:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Mysterypaw

I do agree with the proposal... or something like it.

What you're saying, though, is that some sites don't want to be advertised on here because they want to keep their member levels low. That's all well and good, but I think Oakstar has a good point when she says that it's a free-for-all. Wikipedia is NOT a place to advertise.

Don't believe me? Visit: http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Terms_of_use#Advertising

And I quote: "Commercial activities which have not been authorized by Wikia, Inc. are not permitted on the site. You may not sell or otherwise commercially exploit the use of this service, or access to the service."

You might reply, "but this isn't commercial!"

To which I answer: [quote]"No user shall add advertising that has not been approved by the owner of Wikia."[/quote]

You could say, "Yeah, but we're providing people with a place to role-play. It's a service!"

How pathetic is that? If it's really a service then "new" RPGs are no service at all to people who just want to go to an active RPG, because "new" RPGs do not have enough members, hence the "new" in the title. If you really want to provide non-warriors guests with a service that they can really use, give them a directory that sorts the available RPGs so that people can search for the perfect ones for them. Websites that don't want members don't have to list themselves.

Again, Wikipedia is NOT a place where RPGs can list their URLs in the hopes of getting more members. I don't care how "good" it's been for them, this is NOT the place. It is against the rules and it's going to get the entire section deleted if an admin sees it.

--Hushpelt 21:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This isn't Wikia. The relevant policy for Wikipedia is Wikipedia:External links. If you were looking for the Wikia site on warriors, please see Wikiasite:Warriors. Angela. 15:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Something else to consider

While Hushpelt was harsh, she has a good point. It is more correctly outlined here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox

That is the reason that RPGs may not be directly advertised here: firstly, you wouldn't see content like that on an encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#When_you_wonder_what_to_do), but additionally it cannot be used for "propaganda or advocacy of any kind".

External Links

The lengthy list of external links is ludacris, it is far too long and boderline spam. We need to follow a standard of somesort of notability for each site. Yanksox 22:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless there are objections I am going to remove all the links (except the official page, and the creator's page) as being spam and not meeting notability. If you have a reason not to delete a link, post why. Yanksox 03:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Two days have passed, I will start deleting links. Yanksox 23:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Objection

I would have objected to the removal of all the links had I been here. I have re-added the top two fan-sites, (being Warrior's Wish & StarClan's Mercy) Only the RP sites and a few of the 'fan-sites' had to be deleted. I came here looking for the shrine links and I was very, very dissapointed to find them gone.

Maybe some of the sites that have so much content should be kept up? After all; on the graphics sites you can't add the graphics to Wikipedia.

--Blizzardclaw

The last thing this page needs is more links, it's not within encylopedic standards at all. Any links posted must be official or meet WP:WEB. We need more contextualized content not more links. Yanksox 02:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought

Ok, anyone is open to criticm on this, but I had a thought, so no one is offended, or annoyed. Instead of having all of these links which I admit get on my nerves as well. Have any of you seen those Top RPG sites? Well, if someone made a Top Warriors RPG, put them on there, and provide the link to it here, that might solve some of our problems, but also make us look more professional.

Yours Truly --Brokenwing06 16:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


I didn't add a link to The Moonstone Forums. Uiop 23:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This is unfair!

Why can't we put Warriors RPG links in the "links" part of the article?!! It's not fair, my friends have Warriors RPGs, they need more members, so I was putting the links to their RPGs for them! Like they say, no good deed goes unpunished! Skystar


I totally agree with you Skystar. Our site has only like 4 main members that are actually online to fill up the whole site! Maybe we should make a site that has links to all the sites and add that link to here. Sorrelpaw

Actually, that's a really good idea, Sorrelpaw. :) But some jerk would probable take the link down. :'( The reason the links I put up kept getting deleted, was "because it adds on FAR too much to the article!" Yeah. Sure. Two links is soooo much, isn't it. *rolls eyes* Skystar

My Comments

I just have some things to say:

Skystar - Two links isn't a lot, but when everyone says that, and everyone adds two links, it does get bigger - a lot bigger. If you would like your friends' websites to get more members, affiliate with another Warriors website. Also, RPGs are not websites that inform you about Warriors, and they are not official, which is what the people working on the Wikipedia Warriors article are looking for.

Sorrelpaw - I like your idea.

People complaining - I'm sorry if this sounds rude, but if you want that so badly, why don't you just add it yourself? People worked hard to make this. I helped add book summaries, because someone got rid of the whole article before and wrote sentences about the characters. I added the book summaries because a list of characters with two sentences of info about each of them is worse than just having book summaries. Also, medicine cat herbs and terms are added back on.

Thanks, Mysterypaw


The links problem came up before, so I completely agree with you, Mysterypaw. And that recently-added Warriors characters article helps a lot too. Also, if people want detailed info on the said character, all they need to do is create another article for it.
Like that, I could easily see Warriors becoming like the Harry Potter articles or something.
TakaraLioness 17:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, maybe you guys are right, but I still think we should put RPG links for Warriors SOMEWHERE on Wikipedia. Maybe a whole article dedicated to them, since there are a lot? Skystar


Maybe, but what would it be, just a page full of links? Perhaps there could be a link leading to a page outside of Wikipedia that has a list of RPG links. That might be better.
TakaraLioness 01:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

A new proposal

Why don't we set up a Warriors fan sites page? It would have no conflict about who can post their link. --Res2216firestar 21:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


Sounds good. Skystar


I suppose that could work, but I'm just worried about how many links there'll be because there are so many RPG sites out there. Go for it then and let's see how it turns out.
TakaraLioness 07:1

WARRIORS-based Sites?

I thought the Warriors-based sites section uneeded, and it was also reminding me of that link problem that seems to plague this article every so often. It listed a few forums (a few compared to the number there are out here on the net), and if only a few get on, then everyone and their friend will post their own links. Therefore, I deleted the section.

Feel free to complain and stuff, but we really can't have a hundred links leading to forums on here... TakaraLioness 19:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with the above. Wikipedia is not a place for links off to fansites. If someone really wants to find one, they can google it and be done with it. DoomsDay349 22:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
It was not meant as a place where we would have seperate links for each forum. It would be one website with a big list of Warriors fan sites. That way, people who wanted their links up could be happy without having 100 links. I will be starting a new section on it in this discussion page and I will try to explain more clearly. 24.183.40.221 15:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Mysterypaw

Excuse me, but...

May I ask why all of my sections about creating a link where anyone who wanted to send in their Warriors links could, and then there'd be a link to it from Wikipedia was deleted? It would help solve the link problem, and I'm sorry if you disagree, but I think it's rude to delete something people have worked on. Disagree if you want, 66.191.117.215 19:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Mysterypaw

Warriors Sites

Everyone knows about that big problem we had where there was lots of advertising. My solution is that somebody opens up a website on a free web server or something they already have. There could be a guestbook or an e-mail address where people could send in the names of their favorite Warriors web sites. We can organize by things like role-plays, information sites, etc. We can then post the link on Wikipedia. Basically it'd be like a Warriors link database. If any one has any ideas or can help, please reply! Mysterypaw
There are plenty of advertising sites online for RPGs. I don't feel that Wikipedia's bandwidth should be wasted on something that's more appropriate on proper, dedicated sites. The Wiki's bandwidth should be saves for practical information and facts. Link lists are uncessary and difficult to maintain (Warriors Sites come and go like hummingbirds: There's hardly ever time to grab the Camera befor they're gone).
68.119.164.63 15:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Kitsufox
It would not only be a role-playing list, it would have other sites. Links would be checked and/or deleted every so often. It would be lots of work but worth it, I think. Mysterypaw
To be 100% clear, it is not appropriate to use Wikipedia as a repository of links. What Wikipedia Is Not clearly outlines that a list of links is not suitable for an artical, unless they are offical sites that pertain to the subject. That means' the Offical Warrior Cats page and the Guttersnipes page are IT, unless someone decides to add a publisher link or something in that vein.
It must be accepted that the link list isn't going to happen here, and linking to it is also unacceptable becuase it won't be an offical site, or related in any offical way to the series.
Kitsufox 19:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Kitsufox
Exactly. This issue has come up before and the answer is still unchanged...
TakaraLioness 01:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
That article that Kitsufox put up is talking about a list of links ON Wikipedia. I don't believe it says that there's anything wrong with having a link to an Internet link database. 24.183.40.221 14:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Mysterypaw


Even linking the list of links is inappropriate. The only links that should be inlucde are offical ones. A list of Fan site links is not offical. Unless it's the books publisher, books author, or the offical site about the book, it should not be linked. That is included in the Wikipedia Guidelines. Wiki is an encycolpedia, not a repository for Fan-site (which is what your link-list is) advertisements.
Kitsufox 21:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Kitsufox

Then the Harry Potter fandom page violates those guidelines, and should be deleted.--Res2216firestar 22:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, then you can take that up with the people who maintain that page (and I see that you have and got your answer), but this isn't the Harry Potter fandom article to begin with. That article must be correct with the rules, otherwise I think something would've been done about it a long time ago. Even with those Harry Potter fansite links, there was a long debate about it on that talk page.
TakaraLioness 01:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

In regards to the proposal

I appreciate you trying to take a stand, but those links are inappropriate for Wikipedia. None will be allowed. I personally don't mind reverting it, and if it persists we can get semi-protection. The article is about the book series, not about the RPing sites. Those sites, while interesting, have next to nothing to do with the book series in itself. A site, say, about Warriors speculation that is genuine and not just random fancruft, for the next novel is appropriate; fansites, which these are, are not. Sorry. Even if the vote is to approve the proposal, it's not valid; the links will still be reverted. DoomsDay349 18:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)