19th July 2011, 04:53 AM #1
Yes, that's really my neck
The fansite articles on Bulbapedia certainly aren't the highest priority articles we have, but they are often of low quality. This has possibly come through by lack of direction on the staff's part, or maybe because you guys love Bulbagarden so much you don't go elsewhere (nawww shucks). Whatever the case, these articles need a bit of love.
A lot of the sites are lacking a history section. Every fansite began somewhere: if you're interested in helping out and learning something new, pick a site and do a bit of digging. Those with history sections can definitely get a decent rewrite: rather than listing announcements and changes to the sites sentence by sentence, let's make some decent prose. Bulbapedia is written by the community, after all, so it's important that we feature a bit of the wider community, too. If you were around at the dawn of the Pokémon online era, we'd love to know what you know.
Bulbapedia is not a place for you to give every website's entire site's staff a shoutout. Sorry. If we listed every single moderator of every single site, we'd have some very long pages, especially when we get around to BMGf. These are not vanity pages. This is up for debate, but I'd like to propose that only staff in official, named capacity are listed (i.e. we would list SaturnYoshi as BMGf's Head Administrator, but wouldn't mention John Q. Moderator as an anime mod). This is akin to listing the CEOs of a company on a Wikipedia article, but not listing every receptionist or toilet cleaner; this way we can have some sort of manageable list of staff for all sites which doesn't outbalance the page.
And of course we're not an advertising service either. If a fansite page is going into depth about every single subforum or feature, then some pruning may be required. Keep it simple, Shirley.
This is the tricky turkey (inventive metaphors FTW). We don't have articles on many defunct sites because, well, they're defunct. Unless a now-closed site was super hugely important and you can write five decent paragraphs about it, it probably isn't worth an article. Similarly, we generally don't have articles on some of the newer sites. But again, Bulbapedia isn't an advertising agency. Only create a new article if the site has done something fantastically standout or is a major player that we've somehow missed thus far.
I started this thread with one purpose in mind, but thought about a few more (somewhat) important things as I wrote it. Hopefully it's clear. If you're interested in helping edit this section, but need something more to go on, edit this section and a staffy will get back to you.
Cheers guys. As always, thanks for your help.
P.S. I'm not just looking at articles like Bulbagarden and Pokébeach. I'm also thinking about NIWA and EP articles. Quite a few of those are barren or out-of-date or both.
The dark lord trombonator (trom)
Former Bulbanews Editor-in-Chief, Bulbapedia Deputy Editor-in-Chief, and Archives Advisor
Now blogging as 'idiosyncriticnz' at wordpress.com
19th July 2011, 04:42 PM #2
#1 Magnemite fan
Re: Fansite articles
on my little "things to do list" tacking these was on them. youve beat me to it, which is fine because its essentially the same as i was feeling. id really like some BMG alumni to step up here as well as we have a number of sites listed with micro-articles, but we apparently cant get rid of them because theyre integral to the past of the community or something. i leave that statement with a disjointed end because ive not seen any reason to keep some of them around. if they really are integral, lets get someone to tell us why. and in general, that sort of statement can be said about any fansite. why does it deserve a page on the site? answer that question and you may realize whether or not said site requires an article.
20th July 2011, 01:15 AM #3
Re: Fansite articles
There are also quite a few redlinked site articles on Bulbapedia:Project Fandom/To-do list. Since these still haven't been created, despite being redlinked for some time, I don't know how notable they actually are. Also, speaking of fansite pages we don't have, we don't have a page for Veekun, which I think we should (especially since it's an affiliate of ours).