mNo edit summary |
|||
| Line 93: | Line 93: | ||
The current policy derived from discussion and voting is located at [[Project:Fandom]], but voting is still ongoing. |
The current policy derived from discussion and voting is located at [[Project:Fandom]], but voting is still ongoing. |
||
}} |
}} |
||
| + | {{Faethin|time=00:46, July 31, 2013 (UTC)|text=Why is anybody opposing the third guideline? I believe all forms of notable content related to the series should be covered by the Wiki. Oddball works, like [[Final Fantasy and Philosophy: The Ultimate Walkthrough|"Final Fantasy and Philosophy"]] or the FF Retrospective, are still media that people consume and might be moved to consult the Wiki because of. |
||
| + | |||
| + | Since these instances are rather uncommon, instead of outright forbidding their addition to the Wiki, we could at least treat them on a case-by-case basis.}} |
||
===Guideline 1=== |
===Guideline 1=== |
||
;Yes |
;Yes |
||
Revision as of 00:46, 31 July 2013
Template:TOCleft
Guideline Discussion
Category:Fandom has caught my eye. Project:Scope only makes vague reference to "third-tier" notable non-canon products and how to cover them, but not what defines notability. I would like to suggest we hammer out some notability guidelines for future fan products and vape what does not fit them.
Some guidelines I would suggest are:
This would also require searching for evidence that articles can meet these guidelines, which is only helpful because if a fan product is deemed notable, we ought to cover why - 8-Bit Theater has won awards, Dion Rogers' won a SE contest, etc). | |||
 Catuse says at 05:26, April 24, 2013 (UTC) "Somewhere a zealous god threads these strings between the clouds and the earth, preparing for a symphony it fears impossible to play. And so it threads on, and on, delaying the raise of the conductor's baton." | |||
Yes, yes, and possibly yes? How do we define "significant"? Does it have to be a company? Does it have to have a certain Alexa ranking? Does it need Or do we just decide on a case-by-case basis, which allows things like Final Fantasy: Endless Nova to get in? | |||
It is hard to define what is a notable third party. If something got like millions and millions of views in YouTube without being recognised by a third party, I'd say that could still be notable enough to cover. It's always a bit of a case by case thing.Keltainentoukokuu (talk) 14:00, April 24, 2013 (UTC)
I'd like the official Final Fantasy Superfan contest to have an article and to cover the winner. I don't really care to make it myself though...well, maybe I will make it myself one day!Keltainentoukokuu (talk) 14:02, April 24, 2013 (UTC)
I feel I must argue that we seem to be too lose with our fan pages. Like, Dead Fantasy. Okay, it's popular (I guess? I never have seen it, and only heard about it on the wikia). But it isn't officially recognized by SE. It'd be like if we had a page for Shards of Memory. Or Cloud Mows the Lawn. And with stuff like Spoony... why? He's an online reviewer who, yes, is well-known, but who has no impact on the series. Why have a page for him at all? | |||
As per Drake's propositions:
And yes, Keltie, the Final Fantasy Superfan contest definitely needs its own page. Now, I'll sound kinda 'arrogant' (can't find a better word to describe it), but there's always the Final Fantasy Fandom Wiki which I run and if someone would like to post a fanmade material as s/he thinks it's note-worthy, s/he could do it there. Is there an article you think is of an exceptional quality? Vote for it here! | |||
Tia-Lewise - Tread lightly, she is near, under the snow. Speak gently, she can hear the daisies grow TALK - Summoner of Nyan 20:19, April 27, 2013 (UTC) | |||
In my opinion, fanmade material should really be either recognised by Square or have some significance to us as a Wiki if we're to have it in our mainspace. Otherwise, keep it in userspace, or Kaimi's fandom wiki, and maybe affiliate with it? That way at least people know where to go for the appropriate posting. | |||
Sorceror Nobody – The supreme nonentity Talk · Flan's Elbow Colosseum · MSPA Wiki · 20:28, April 27, 2013 (UTC) "I can detect matter down to one atom in a vacuum the size of the moon, and apparently, this guy doesn't exist" -- Foaly | |||
Ok so let's see...
That's all the ones I know off the top of my head without looking at the category. | |||
It has been brought up that both the second and third points have the problem of defining what is a notable-enough third party. Well, it may not be reached with a known process, but I'll direct everyone to this link, which notes the websites and magazines says are good enough to be on their VG reviews template. These are, among others: GameSpot, IGN, GameSpy, 1UP, Eurogamer, VideoGamer, GameInformer, Edge, Nintendo Power, Playstation Magazine, XBox Magazine, PC World, and Famitsu. The list seems good to me, all are recognized and known publications, and if they're reliable enough for Wikipedia with their much tighter standards, I don't see why the list isn't good enough for us.
| |||
Alright, this has been dead for a week and I want resolution. So to get this out there, I suggest that all three guidelines be implimented:
And for notable/significant third-party websites, we uses this list as a starting point and discussing adding or removing entries on the list once we've agreed that these three guidelines using such a defined list are acceptable. (For instance we can add Siliconera). Everyone good with this? | |||
I agree with the first guideline entirely, and won't bother commenting on the axed third guideline. The second... I'm not wholly against it, nor for. My concern is - like you stated - its our widest guideline, and we'll be putting in a lot of content that isn't strictly... hmm, how do I put this? I know what Siliconera is and read it myself, but is it worth a page on the FFwiki for its occasional posts with FF content? And what would the article say, other than pointing the user to the website, or lifting its content? If we can make it work, then fine, let's do it, but I think it'd require quite a bit of policing. - Paramina (talk) 20:19, May 3, 2013 (UTC)
- EDIT: Basically what I'm saying is I'm skeptical of any fandom content on the wiki, tbh, unless it's been recognised by Square or is something like 8bit Theatre. - Paramina (talk) 20:27, May 3, 2013 (UTC)
- I just remembered this- Bulbapedia have a Project Fandom area of their wiki- http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Bulbapedia:Project_Fandom - I don't know if we'd like to dedicate any time to something like this, but I'm just throwing it out there as a possible suggestion if we want to be rather loose as to what we cover. Tia-Lewise
18:57, May 4, 2013 (UTC)
- I just remembered this- Bulbapedia have a Project Fandom area of their wiki- http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Bulbapedia:Project_Fandom - I don't know if we'd like to dedicate any time to something like this, but I'm just throwing it out there as a possible suggestion if we want to be rather loose as to what we cover. Tia-Lewise
- A possibility, but then the Project would still need guidelines to go by. Drake Clawfang (talk) 19:04, May 4, 2013 (UTC)
- It sounds like what we're doing already, just given a name. Our project fandom is Project
{{fanmade}}. Unless I'm missing something, what changes would there be? JBed (talk) 19:08, May 4, 2013 (UTC)
All right, I'll just put myself down as agreeing with the outlines Drake's made. Jimcloud 21:43, May 9, 2013 (UTC)
| Catuse says at 21:49, May 9, 2013 (UTC) "Somewhere a zealous god threads these strings between the clouds and the earth, preparing for a symphony it fears impossible to play. And so it threads on, and on, delaying the raise of the conductor's baton." | |||
I agree with using that list as a starting point, though we have a lot of trimming to do: pure reviewers with nothing beyond that can go, and so can sites that don't cover Square Enix games, such as Teamxbox and Amtix. | |||
Agree with the first and second parts of Drake's guidelines. As for the third, I honestly don't think something like Gametrailer's poorly researched retrospective deserves a page on the wiki any more than Endless Nova (of course, Endless Nova is one of those bizarre fixtures of the wiki that I'd sorta miss in a silly way). I think anything of real worth and merit can be covered in the first two categories: if a third party created something, we should only cover it if other third parties take note. Otherwise, we'd start covering anything Final Fantasy related that any large video game site spits out, which is something I'm assuming we don't want to do. ScatheMote 21:59, May 9, 2013 (UTC)
Website Discussion
So, working off this initial list, what additional websites do we define as significant third-parties, and what ones from the list can we ax for not meeting our needs for such a list (ie, they're review websites unlikely to offer news coverage of fan things).
| |||
| Catuse says at 00:15, May 16, 2013 (UTC) "Somewhere a zealous god threads these strings between the clouds and the earth, preparing for a symphony it fears impossible to play. And so it threads on, and on, delaying the raise of the conductor's baton." | |||
Well, here's a very rushed and preliminary list. I put more work into axing useless magazines (about ~1980s gaming and Xbox mostly) than finding more sources (mostly we just cite Siliconera, Kotaku, Andriasang, and Square Enix themselves on the wiki anyways). | |||
Final Verdict
Okay this died but there was general consensus. So we can pass this into official policy, these are the proposed three guidelines for fandom notability and examples of current articles we cover that these guidelines would clear:
Note the third guideline was disputed, but I list it here for the sake of accommodating all opinions. Please vote yay or nay on each of the three guidelines passing into policy. The current policy derived from discussion and voting is located at Project:Fandom, but voting is still ongoing. | |||
Why is anybody opposing the third guideline? I believe all forms of notable content related to the series should be covered by the Wiki. Oddball works, like "Final Fantasy and Philosophy" or the FF Retrospective, are still media that people consume and might be moved to consult the Wiki because of. Since these instances are rather uncommon, instead of outright forbidding their addition to the Wiki, we could at least treat them on a case-by-case basis. | |||
Guideline 1
- Yes
- C A T U S E 21:37, July 27, 2013 (UTC)
- -- Some Color Mage ~ (Talk) 23:02, July 27, 2013 (UTC)
- ScatheMote 23:27, July 27, 2013 (UTC)
- Jimcloud 15:28, July 28, 2013 (UTC)
- — YuanSalut 11:48, July 30, 2013 (UTC)
- SidVI 15:38, July 30, 2013 (UTC)
- No
Guideline 2
- Yes
- C A T U S E 21:37, July 27, 2013 (UTC)
- --BlueHighwindツ 22:55, July 27, 2013 (UTC)
- -- Some Color Mage ~ (Talk) 23:02, July 27, 2013 (UTC)
- ScatheMote 23:27, July 27, 2013 (UTC)
- Jimcloud 15:28, July 28, 2013 (UTC)
- ShirubaKurono 21:35, July 28, 2013 (UTC)
- — YuanSalut 11:48, July 30, 2013 (UTC)
- SidVI 15:38, July 30, 2013 (UTC)
- No
Guideline 3
- Yes
- Jblancosegura (talk) 14:13, July 30, 2013 (UTC)
- No
- C A T U S E 21:37, July 27, 2013 (UTC)
- -- Some Color Mage ~ (Talk) 23:02, July 27, 2013 (UTC)
- ScatheMote 23:27, July 27, 2013 (UTC)
- — YuanSalut 11:48, July 30, 2013 (UTC)
Phase 2 - Housecleaning
With the current state of policy, the following items are currently endangered. I will put up deletion notices so anyone who wants to save them can do so.
| |||