Talk:List of fansites/Archive 3

Archive

---

Discussions

• 2010 Jan – Dec 2011
• Nov 2011 – Jun 2012
• Jun 2012 – July 2012

Additions

• 2012 Jan – Jun

Time between suggestion and addition

From a discussion above, there was a mention of the subjectivity of the time taken to form a consensus. I don't know how much time was taken beforehand, but I suggest that it be 24 hours bare minimum, with waiting time subjective beyond that point. That way it gives any regular editor the opportunity to comment. I don't think a day is too long to wait. Maybe that's too short for a minimum, though. Thoughts? (Also, wanted to say I found the page helpful, and hope that it sticks around.) --EnderA 05:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

As long as it is something clearly notable and/or featured on Anet's official channels like their site, twitter, facebook, blog etc no discussion is needed, it should be automatically added. Things that are clearly not notable like a dead forum or fansite community also doesn't need a discussion. Things that need a discussion are borderline notable. But even in that case, it probably shouldn't be added because this list is to showcase clearly notable fansites... not borderline or "maybe" notable fansites. --Lania 19:18, 05 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we need to specify a minimum time period. As Lania states, if ANet calls attention to it, we should add it immediately (and only remove it if/when it goes dead). If it's not mentioned by ANet, then the question is whether there's a strong consensus to add it. (The only controversy occurred when I suggested two sites on the sandbox page and then moved the suggestion to this page — that gave the appearance that little time had been left to comment (which was wrong and foolish of me). (Neither site was a controversial addition: they both show up prominently in Google and they both are mentioned frequently on a large variety of sites. That particular issue will never arise again.) That said, I agree that 24 hrs is too quick a comment period, but whether we wait three days or a week or even a month depends on opinions offered about the site... the same situation that arises when we propose to rename or merge articles.

I do think we should allow a culling process, too: people can propose that we remove a site for the reverse reasons: e.g. it's no longer up-to-date, it no longer appears prominently in Google searches, or it isn't getting the numbers it used to. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

There's little reason to wait if the site meets the criteria. It can be discussed upon later, and edited or removed if it fails the criteria after all (like being inactive community, etc.). We're not carving a stone tablet here. Mediggo 06:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Notable Sites Mentioned by ArenaNet

I was wondering how you decide whether a site has been prominently featured by ArenaNet? I'm missing sites like Talk Tyria and GuildMag who have been mentioned, more than once, in a link-roundup but are clearly missing from the list. This while other sites who have not been as active are listed on the site. 69.31.103.146 17:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

We've only recently overhauled this list of fansites. It is for that reason that many prominent additions are currently not listed yet. Because the wiki is a community effort, it also relies on input from users who are not commonly found editing here. Personally I feel that both examples you provided should be listed here. - Infinite - talk 18:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

We've got a chat coming up with ArenaNet - one of the topics is this page. I guess we'll see what comes out of that. -- aspectacle  23:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggest the site(s) formally and link to the official post/interview; they'll get added. Since we reduced the size of the list, I've been trying to keep up with any site mentioned by ANet recently (or sites they mentioned a while back that are still being kept up-to-date. There's no way any one (or two of us) is going to manage to catch each and every mention.

For reference, the original list got long and bloated and ended up included dead sites, sites that became out of date, guild sites, and others that weren't useful to most readers of this wiki. We decided to reduce the list to only those sites that were already prominent or were listed on the official website for GW2 or had a corresponding website linked as an officially recognized fansite for GW1. In this way, we deliberately erred on having too short a list rather than too long (the original problem). The goal is to have a short, manageable list linking to sites of high-value (either generally or for some specific feature, e.g. comparing GW1 locations to those in GW2). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Convert to template

Does anyone have objections to converting the current gobbledegook data-entry system into a template? It's more difficult than it ought to be to add a new row. Also, this would make it easier to add new columns (e.g. existing entries would automatically display TBD), re-arrange the order, or otherwise adapt to changing needs/circumstances.

I've created a suggested version in my sandbox. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that a sortable date column should be included, at least on the project or template page, to quickly find sites not checked for a long time. I think there should also be more columns for different fansite types. Tools? Database? Project? Mediggo 17:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The template includes a date field (but i don't display it because I don't think it's relevant to the average player how often someone from this community checks links; it will make it easier to find stale sites and we can make it easier to filter later).

I agree with more columns, but I thought the first step would be to convert the current code-driven table into a template-driven one. Based on the convos above, we're going to probably end up doing something different, so I thought it would be more useful to create something that works today and is trivial to convert tomorrow.

In the meantime, what about columns for these features that seem to be common: maps, database, saved builds, blogs, guides, and news (I'd argue that we mark the last one as "no" if, at the time of posting, there's nothing new in the last 2 weeks — anything older than a fortnight is very old at this point). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Aye, I simply meant that the date should be kept for the purpose I mentioned even if it is hidden from actual article. The features you suggest sound just fine to me, though I think there could also be something like "media" which would contain/include videos, podcast, radio show, etc. original media content since some sites depend on one or more of those. Mediggo 19:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)