FANDOM


(General trouble at Wikipedia, and personal trouble of not getting that post to work)
 
m
 
(7 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{Forum Helping Hand header}}
 
{{Forum Helping Hand header}}
 
 
{{Forum post
 
{{Forum post
|Hello everyone! Recently the link to the Forgotten Realms Wiki [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Forgotten_Realms&type=revision&diff=932527558&oldid=931197121 has been removed] from the [[Wikipedia:Forgotten Realms|Forgotten Realms]] article at [[Wikipedia:Main Page|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 [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Forgotten Realms Wiki acceptable?|discussed here]]. If anyone has anything to contribute to amend that state of affairs, now would be a good time.
+
|Hello everyone! Recently the link to the Forgotten Realms Wiki has been removed from the [[Wikipedia:Forgotten Realms|Forgotten Realms]] article at [[Wikipedia:Main Page|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 [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Forgotten Realms Wiki acceptable?|discussed here]]. If anyone has anything to contribute to amend that state of affairs, now would be a good time.
 
|[[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)}}
  +
{{Forum post|I agree with Ir'revrykal. That one user should cite their 100-150 editor limit. The other seems suportive at least.|[[User:Regis87|Regis87]] ([[User talk:Regis87|talk]]) 14:38, December 29, 2019 (UTC)}}
  +
{{Forum post
  +
|Thanks, I have tried to give it another go.
  +
|[[User:Daranios|Daranios]] ([[User talk:Daranios|talk]]) 17:41, December 29, 2019 (UTC)
  +
}}
  +
{{Forum post
  +
|There loss. After I read this I signed up to Fandom to be a contributor for you guys and gals. I don't know how to contribute well yet, but I will learn slowly.
  +
|[[User:Gothrog|Gothrog]] ([[User talk:Gothrog|talk]]) 22:36, April 29, 2020 (EDT)
  +
}}
  +
{{Forum post
  +
|That's awesome - glad to have you aboard!
  +
|[[User:Ruf67|Ruf]] ([[User talk:Ruf67|talk]]) 15:15, April 30, 2020 (UTC)}}

Latest revision as of 15:15, April 30, 2020

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)
I agree with Ir'revrykal. That one user should cite their 100-150 editor limit. The other seems suportive at least.
Regis87 (talk) 14:38, December 29, 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I have tried to give it another go.
Daranios (talk) 17:41, December 29, 2019 (UTC)
There loss. After I read this I signed up to Fandom to be a contributor for you guys and gals. I don't know how to contribute well yet, but I will learn slowly.
Gothrog (talk) 22:36, April 29, 2020 (EDT)
That's awesome - glad to have you aboard!
Ruf (talk) 15:15, April 30, 2020 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.