From StrategyWiki, the video game walkthrough and strategy guide wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
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 staff lounge page.

2012 | May 2012 | 2012

Inclusion of fan-site link on poorly populated guide

As per this discussion, I wanted to give other admins an opportunity to weigh in on the matter and provide their opinions. Thanks for your time. Procyon 20:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It's directly competitive to our site, so unless the linking is two-way like with our partners, my opinion is definitely not. The only external links we should provide are to resources outside our scope and they should go in an "External links" section at the bottom of the main guide page, not in the intro. Also, non-admin should feel free to opine as well. :D (P.S. should the title of this section not be "on poorly populated guide"?) — najzereT 02:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Duly noted, thanks Naj ;) Procyon 03:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Linking to a given site isn't the best thing to do. In particular, it's places focus on one fansite over another, especially since the given fansite might not be the primary resource used by fans (even if it's the most popular). Since fan sites compete with each other, there's a good chance that some may be abandoned and users migrate to another one. Since the official site lists the fansites, it's better to link there instead and let the Urban Rivals community decide from there. Also, linking shouldn't be necessary since guides should be standalone, and with links being reserved for non-game information (e.g. as is done with the NIWA partners when appropriate) or for providing proof for contested information. Guides, and other forms of more permanent references, should try to be standalone to avoid having important parts disappear. --Sigma 7 05:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I've got to agree with you. Despite being rather late I wanted to add an opinion. An issue like linking fansites should not rely on how populated a page is. A diversion doesn't seem like the spirit of Strategywiki to me since it would not encourage people to fill in the gaps here over following the link. For outside unofficial sites it would be best if they are as complete/active as Bulbapedia and the Zelda Wiki. They don't really seem to do walkthroughs so it is a mutual benefit to partner up for both parties. If we don't have at least one dedicated person over here working on a guide for a game or franchise I can't see a major fansite for one wanting to partner up as well so the underpopulated concept may be a variable for that. It doesn't seem fair to send out an olive branch if we aren't trying to be a good partner as well. I do like that our current partners are active enough I'm not worried that they may disappear or die off in a few years. --Zaiqukaj 06:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
If we all worked hard on this we probably could get added as a fan site, too. Unless the site has some really useful script/tool that can't be copied, I wouldn't link to it. --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 15:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Sysop nomination: Paco

Please see StrategyWiki:Requests for permissions/Paco. --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 16:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)