FANDOM


m (rm external link messing up the template for some reason)
(reply)
Line 5: Line 5:
 
|[[User:Daranios|Daranios]] ([[User talk:Daranios|talk]]) 10:51, December 29, 2019 (UTC)
 
|[[User:Daranios|Daranios]] ([[User talk:Daranios|talk]]) 10:51, December 29, 2019 (UTC)
 
}}
 
}}
  +
{{Forum post|It seems our links have attracted the attention of a particularly unsympathetic type of Wikipedia user who cares less about quality than arbitrarily enforcing a rule.
  +
  +
Their external links policy on "open wikis" dictates wikis must have "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." I saw the 100 editors figure mentioned but there is no basis for that in policy. It is also beyond folly to judge a wiki solely by the amount of active contributors. Our editor count is a weak argument from their side.
  +
  +
I'd say your best bet is to demonstrate how we have a "substantial history of stability." I don't know what would sway them, but perhaps it is worth pointing out how long this wiki has been operational, links to our site from the media (perhaps in relation to Stranger Things, Baldur's Gate III), or that one tweet where Ed Greenwood sent readers to our wiki, something along those lines.
  +
  +
Ultimately we are not affiliated with Wikipedia in any way nor do we benefit greatly from being linked to by them (as far as I am aware). If they want to rob their readers of a valuable resource it is their own call.|[[User:Ir'revrykal|Ir'revrykal]] ([[User talk:Ir'revrykal|talk]]) 11:42, December 29, 2019 (UTC)}}

Revision as of 11:42, December 29, 2019

Forums: Helping Hand > Too few for Wikipedia

Use the following template for a nicely presented post:

{{Forum post|Write your message here!|~~~~}}


Hello everyone! Recently the link to the Forgotten Realms Wiki has been removed from the Forgotten Realms article at Wikipedia. Sadly, it seems the count of our active users is too low for the extremely high standard Wikipedia sets for external links to wikis, as discussed here. If anyone has anything to contribute to amend that state of affairs, now would be a good time.
Daranios (talk) 10:51, December 29, 2019 (UTC)
It seems our links have attracted the attention of a particularly unsympathetic type of Wikipedia user who cares less about quality than arbitrarily enforcing a rule.

Their external links policy on "open wikis" dictates wikis must have "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." I saw the 100 editors figure mentioned but there is no basis for that in policy. It is also beyond folly to judge a wiki solely by the amount of active contributors. Our editor count is a weak argument from their side.

I'd say your best bet is to demonstrate how we have a "substantial history of stability." I don't know what would sway them, but perhaps it is worth pointing out how long this wiki has been operational, links to our site from the media (perhaps in relation to Stranger Things, Baldur's Gate III), or that one tweet where Ed Greenwood sent readers to our wiki, something along those lines.

Ultimately we are not affiliated with Wikipedia in any way nor do we benefit greatly from being linked to by them (as far as I am aware). If they want to rob their readers of a valuable resource it is their own call.
Ir'revrykal (talk) 11:42, December 29, 2019 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.