Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > See also links to other sites
 |
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to Forum:Wiki discussion. |
Currently, several other sites are linked from articles' see also sections: the Collectible Card Game wiki, the Fan wiki, and the MLP Gameloft wiki (discussion) are the main ones, I think, and there are a smattering of links to a few other sites too (mostly, I think, in the form of linking to ponies with a similar name to the current pony's on My Little Wiki). The fan wiki, though, is not linked consistently, and I haven't checked to see how well the CCG wiki is linked (though it looks reasonably comprehensive). I am wondering, therefore, if there would be a problem with finishing out the fan wiki linking and checking the thoroughness of the CCG wiki linking, as well as looking at adding some other sites:
- Wikipedia, for the few cases where the subject of an article has its own Wikipedia article
- My Little Wiki, which usually provides context on a subject of other interpretations and renditions of that subject throughout MLP's history
- MLP Equestria Girls wiki, which focuses on the Equestria Girls and Rainbow Rocks films and directly related materials, and is in dire need of attention
I am also interested in any thoughts anyone has on ordering of links: currently, they are sorted alphabetically by the name of the wiki, but a different sorting may be desired, especially with more sites in the mix, and there's also the question of whether they should come before or after see also links to related articles on this wiki (e.g. articles' speculation pages, or articles for ponies with similar names). And if anyone has suggestions for other sites that might be linked from articles' see also sections, getting those suggestions sooner rather than later would be helpful. =) 「ディノ奴千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 18:10, November 25, 2014 (UTC)
- *poke* I'm gonna give this a couple more days to see if there're any last-minute objections (or suggestions! suggestions are still welcome! =) ), and if there aren't any, I'm going to interpret it as assent and start on this. 「ディノ奴千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 06:55, December 9, 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not in favor of linking to the Equestria Girls wiki (previous discussions)
or to Wikipedia, but My Little Wiki see also links sound like a good ideafor subjects present in other generations of My Little Pony. (7)6(four) (talk) 05:59, December 10, 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not in favor of linking to the Equestria Girls wiki (previous discussions)
- Oh, I wasn't aware of the previous discussions on linking to the EG wiki, thanks for linking them here. While personally I don't really agree with the sentiment of "we cover everything here, so there's no reason/need to link to this other wiki with an explicit focus on this content", I understand that it seems to be the current consensus and have no problem with dropping that portion of my proposal in response.
- I'd like if you could elaborate some on not being in favor of linking to Wikipedia; my intention was that these links would be added only when there was a nearly 1:1 correspondence in scope between the article here and its Wikipedia counterpart (e.g. linking from the My Little Pony: Equestria Girls article here to Wikipedia's My Little Pony: Equestria Girls article, but not, for example, linking from the Friendship is Magic, part 1 article here to Wikipedia's episode list or season 1 article). I also don't see the point in limiting links to My Little Wiki to just cases where the character has a presence in the pre-G4 franchise; after all, there's no such selectivity in links to either the CCG wiki or the Gameloft wiki, even in cases where the only content in the companion article aside from a minimal description is just a bare rundown of basic stats, nor was such a restriction hinted at in the past discussions I've read or participated in. I can understand not wanting to provide free advertising (and to that end, I've been intending to add links back here from the articles on the Gameloft wiki for a while now; I should really get on that already), but discounting the possibility before even soliciting reciprocity in linking leads me to believe that's not your concern here. 「ディノ奴千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 08:37, December 10, 2014 (UTC)
- I've now rethought things and changed my mind about some stuff; struck out those parts of my previous response here (my apologies for the back-and-forth). (7)6(four) (talk) 15:27, December 10, 2014 (UTC)
- No apologies necessary; this never went beyond a debate (and didn't even get very far into that), and as long as none of the participants simply stonewall or become belligerent, debate is the best way to resolve differences of opinion such as this. As such, I'm always willing to entertain a healthy debate on discussions I start. =) 「ディノ奴千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 21:34, December 10, 2014 (UTC)
- «I don't really agree with the sentiment of "we cover everything here, so there's no reason/need to link to this other wiki with an explicit focus on this content"» – well, actually that's pretty good reason not to link there. I mean, if our pages were shorter and general, while the other wiki's article developed the idea in more detail or focused on other aspects than here, then it would make sense to link them; however, this is the exact opposite of real situation. English EG wiki is barely alive, especially compared to typical English wikis, having a WAM score of less than 30% – even Brazilian Portuguese has (slightly) more, not to mention Polish's 67%. If, within the clearly defined topic, they manage to cover it less thoroughly, I see no reason to link to them in articles. Vengir (talk) 22:02, December 22, 2014 (UTC)
- The argument that a wiki shouldn't be linked until their content or community improves enough is exactly backwards in my opinion, though; the whole reason the wiki's content and community are so sparse are because most people who might be interested in contributing aren't aware of its existence. And as long as the wiki isn't linked somewhere that's likely to generate more traffic (and from there more edits and, hopefully, more permanent or semipermanent contributors), the situation isn't likely to improve, either. While, as I said before, I'm not going to try to change current consensus on linking the EG wiki from articles here, that is not a valid argument against it as far as I'm concerned. 「ディノ奴千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 01:03, December 23, 2014 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the main reason why it's inactive isn't because it's poorly linked from here. Do we have such high activity (98,87% WAM) because we are linked from some bigger wiki? I don't think so. The real reason why it's barely active is because we cover that topic already good enough. People, both editors and readers, will always naturally flock to the more developed wiki. We are its competition, whether we like it or not! I'm pretty sure that quite some major editors are well aware of its existence, but they won't edit there, because it will take tons of work and time to revive it, and there is little point in even doing so, since that niche is already filled by us. In fact, there are two links in movie articles and one more in the main navigation bar, which I consider not really needed, but acceptable (just like links to that wiki in any other article in fact). And again, Polish EG wiki was doing quite alright even before Polish MLP wiki started linking to it in "See also" section because Polish MLP wiki doesn't cover Equestria Girls and this means that it has no serious competition. In order to revive EG wiki, at least one of these two things would have to be done (preferably the first one): stop writing about EG here and migrate all appropriate content there; or find a genius, who can write better articles (at least to a large group of people) which would be at the same time against this wiki's rules or consensus (because otherwise he would sooner write them here instead). Vengir (talk) 13:07, December 23, 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't really explain myself very clearly. =C I wasn't trying to imply that it's somehow this wiki's fault for the EG wiki's inactivity, because this wiki doesn't link to it (and I wasn't aware of the link in the navigation bar, since I normally use the Monobook skin, and rarely if ever preview pages using the default skin on this wiki). I was also not trying to say we have some sort of obligation to the EG wiki. But this situation really isn't much different from the Gameloft and CCG wikis: for the most part, all the information on either of these that casual readers are likely to be interested in is already covered here, but this overlap of coverage was never brought up as a concern in the discussions about linking these wikis, so I don't see why it should suddenly be relevant to the discussion on whether to link the EG wiki. And I am well aware of just how much work it is getting a wiki off the ground - including in cases where a wiki on a particular topic has been split off from a larger, broader-scoped wiki. That argument doesn't phase me much, because I'm an eventualist, and there is no deadline. But we're getting quite off-topic (really, we have been for some time ^^ ), and while I'd be more than happy to continue this discussion with you if you want to, it would be better to continue it on my talk page or somewhere else. =) 「ディノ奴千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 13:39, December 23, 2014 (UTC)
- I just remembered, there's also the MLP Fan Labor Wiki which is sporadically linked from articles here. This is another wiki I think should be consistently linked from articles here where relevant. (Also, it really needs redirects from mlpfanlabor.wikia.com and mlpfanworks.wikia.com, but that's neither here nor there.) 「ディノ奴千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 23:04, December 21, 2014 (UTC)
- As far as I'm aware, when this wiki and that wiki each have an article about a subject, there are supposed to be see also links between the two articles. (7)6(four) (talk) 01:00, December 22, 2014 (UTC)