User talk:Subtlefuge/Help:Style guide/CommunityContent

Notability

What makes a website worth mentioning on the Wiki? Please give suggestions to the effect of how to qualify for having an article. --Subtlefuge 07:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Needs to be an explicit criteria, like being mentioned on the official blog, or having a certain number of hits/month (but then we'd need an article about the old wiki, ololol) — Wind 03:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to suggest reliable navigation be a candidate in this as well...I'd hardly want to go to a high-traffic site that's neigh-impossible to find anything on. Fragment of Nothing 05:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Both items noted in article. We need more suggestions about this and other topics people! --Subtlefuge 11:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Whether it conveys some new benefit on the community should be noted. For example, if it's another backpack viewer, it's less likely to be worth mentioning. A site that serves as a Coaching matchmaker, however, would be more likely.--Focusknock 19:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Advertisements/Related stuff

This is specifically targeted at certain sites advertising their TF2 servers. Is this appropriate? Should be it tolerated, or removed? — Wind 05:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that advertising for servers with "pay for admin or reserved slot" is absolutely inappropriate conduct on the Wiki. In other cases, I'm not sure if it's appropriate. --Subtlefuge 05:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If the TF2 server is vanilla and generally ok, then it should be tolerated. It would be inappropriate if it boasts unique mods or plugins, and the dreaded premium account.--Focusknock 19:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Points

I have a few issues with the content of this page. It feels way too restrictive. A guideline like "Must be a easy to use and well designed website" is one I don't believe is valid at all – we're an encyclopedia, why are we judging whether to cover a site or not based on usability? It isn't relevant at all. "Little to no advertisements on website" is also invalid because the amount of advertisements cannot in most ways affect the subject's notability (think of CNN, the New York Times, etc, they all have large(?) amounts of advertising yet as subjects they are hugely important). The sections "Edit Wars" and "Reminders" seem too extensive, and although I understand they may serve as reminders, I feel they do not accurately represent what has already been defined in Team Fortress Wiki:Policies.

I think the good parts of this page should be moved to a new general notability page with community websites, custom maps, etc, covered in individual sections. The subject is not extensive enough to have its own page dedicated to it, in my opinion. seb26 [talk] 07:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I do, however, appreciate the work and thought that has been put into this though, Subtlefuge. I do not disagree that notability guidelines for websites should be covered, just that it'd make more sense to cover guidelines for other subjects as well. seb26 [talk] 07:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. I'm afraid I did not use the Policy section to form the final sections, but instead used input from Staff members. I assumed that it would give me the "de facto" policy. I had intended on this being more generalized to cover basic Conflict of Interest and Notability, but had yet to decide on how to classify it. Just a reminder that these are very very rough guidelines, hence why they are on my user page. They are mostly cobbled together from my experience with COI editing on Wikipedia, and input from other members. Feel free to inform me of any specific or general changes that you wish to be made. --Subtlefuge 07:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Restructuring

"Community Websites" was always a placeholder until there was some consensus on what direction this would end up taking. My original suggestion was based on the idea of "Community Guidelines". However, to accurately reflect the new direction of this page, I suggest it be renamed to "User-made and Community Content" or something similar. --Subtlefuge 07:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Fairly happy with this

At the moment I am personally happy with the current state of the page. I think it would be right to encourage discussion on it by the community at large before it is published and becomes official. -- Pilk _(talk) 01:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

He's been trying >: — Wind 03:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the fact this is fairly staff-heavy discussion doesn't help.--Focusknock 19:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"Sites that have been associated with on- or off-wiki attacks on this site or any of its staff members."

Personally, I don't think this should be a criteria that bans a community website from being listed. I've stated this a lot over many discussions, and I'll state it again: Our job is to document the game and community around TF2. Vendetta's the Wiki has with particular sites I don't think should affect whether or not they're notable.

TF2Wiki.net, for instance, was our home before the official status - I'll admit we're not big fans of the site anymore for numerous reasons, but I think it deserves a page written in the historical context - it's not exactly "standard" or "high use" now, but it once was.

I can't honestly think of any site that we have a vendetta with, so I'm wondering if that rule was added specifically regarding TF2Wiki.

Anyway, that's my only concern at the moment with these guidelines. The rest of it looks great. -- 18:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I am surprised that this kept going in my absence. I don't believe that we should ever willingly send someone to a site that could be potentially unsafe or subject them to objectionable content (such as JFH). However, if we just don't like a site, that shouldn't disqualify them. --Subtlefuge 23:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)