Battlestar Wiki article up for deletion... AGAIN.

[DrWho42]

Note: The Battlestar Wiki or Battlestar Forum admins are not requesting that you go and support it's "Keep". This is a thread of discussion only! -- Shane

The Battlestar Wiki article is up for deletion yet again... Follow the link to the discussion right here:

Battlestar Wiki third nomination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Battlestar_Wiki_%283rd_nomination%29)

:mad:

[DrWho42]

Is there any way we can expand the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlestar_Wiki) to appease the Deletionists or is it a hopeless endeavour?

[Joe Beaudoin Jr.]

We can probably add the fact that Bradley Thompson answers our questions via the Wiki, note that we were the first to report Cally's last name, etc. However, I'm not sure if it will appease the deletionists...

[ShadowEnigma]

Why do they even care? Don't they have better things to do then look around for articles to delete?

[DrWho42]

We can probably add the fact that Bradley Thompson answers our questions via the Wiki, note that we were the first to report Cally's last name, etc. However, I'm not sure if it will appease the deletionists...I also doubt it, but still. I remember I was involved with saving Wikipedia's List of Sci Fi Channel (United States) programs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sci_Fi_Channel_%28United_States%29_program s) from deletion, although not at first (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Sci_Fi_Channel_%28United_States%29_program s). The discussion was later rekindled by the nomination of all program lists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lists_of_programs_broadcast_by_networks), which then restored the article List of Sci Fi Channel programs.

I doubt saving this article would follow that pattern, but I feel it's notable enough to merit its own entry on Wikipedia.

[Joe Beaudoin Jr.]

Why do they even care? Don't they have better things to do then look around for articles to delete?

They "care" because they are on some sort of quixotic "crusade" to make Wikipedia "encyclopedic". Of course, since no one can agree to a detailed definition of that term, they come up with roaming bands of nomads like "Deletionists", "Inclusionists", "Exopedians", "Wackopedians", "Can-do-pedians", "Professorpedians", "Jerkoffpedians", and all these other cliques and divisions that will only result in tearing apart Wikipedia. And that's just fine, because Google or some other entrepreneur will come along and do a "user edited" encyclopedia the right way, the practical way.

So we're left with people who fight for their groups right to supremacy on Wikipedia. It's like World of Warcraft or a MMORPG, except instead of quests to slay dragons, they slay information because it's "not-notable". :(

Sad, isn't it?

[DrWho42]

We can probably add the fact that Bradley Thompson answers our questions via the Wiki, note that we were the first to report Cally's last name, etc. However, I'm not sure if it will appease the deletionists...There's also how Wikia offered $2,500 for "free hosting". I'm making a couple edits, and will probably try linking more articles thereto, but I'm getting editor's block with improving the article. :S

[OrionFour]

There are frakking Wikia sites that have articles on Wikipedia, I don't see why they have to go targetting the BS Wiki all the time. I guess it's easier to delete articles and call that "quality" rather than improving existing articles.

It sure is awful timing too. In a couple weeks the BS Wiki's numbers will rival or maybe even surpass Memory Alpha's with the season premiere and all.

[DrWho42]

The current situation seems bleak for the article. Might we invest in preparing an article worthy of notability or would that never happen*?

*considering the "non-notability" of the current article...

[Joe Beaudoin Jr.]

Short of a mention in Time Magazine or the New York Times at this point, I believe the article is doomed for death. I will reiterate my obseration that neither "The Lurker's Guide to B5" nor Memory Alpha's Wikpedia articles have such things either, and have the same (or less) references to "notability" that we do, but yet have survived the "article" guillotine. Or never been through the "Articles for Deletion" process, period.

For the purposes of transparency, I do want to mention that I've discussed this with the Wiki's chiefs and with members of the Frak Media! group. We discussed whether or not we should "fight" this decision as a group, and we've come to the conclusion that the article really isn't worth fighting for. Basically, we feel that we really don't need an article on Wikipedia, since BW outranks Wikipedia in a majority of web searches for BSG. Further, in looking at our server logs, a majority of our visitors from WP come through links on their Battlestar Galactica pages, and not on the Battlestar Wiki article.

To be honest, as long as we have those links on Wikipedia's BSG articles, I think we'll be quite all right. It's better than nothing.

So... we decided to focus our energies on simply doing what we've been doing best. That's continually expanding Battlestar Wiki into one of the better Wikis/encyclopedias on the net.

At the end of the day, we basically feel (and some of us very strongly to boot) that we don't need to justify our "notability" or the efficacy of our existence to Wikipedia's so-called "standards".

On the other hand, I do appreciate Ben's efforts to save our article, and those who feel that our article is worthy of survival. However, the realist within me believes that we're just fighting against the inmates that have been allowed to control the Wikipedia asylum.

[Joe Beaudoin Jr.]

I've found out today that the WP article on Battlestar Wiki was deleted today.

I do want to thank everyone who tried to convince them not to delete it. You have the thanks of all the chiefs and your fellow members... and yours truly. We appreciate all those who have come out in support of us. :thumbsup:

I will be blogging about this sometime tonight or tomorrow, because I think it merely highlights the problems that Wikipedia has. I'm biding my time in doing that, because I want the article to be as logically sound as possible -- I really don't want to come across as being someone with an ax to grind -- add to the fact that I've just received the Season 4 premiere screener, which was sent out to the project leader of a "non-notable" website!

Keep the faith!

[Steelviper]

add to the fact that I've just received the Season 4 premiere screener, which was sent out to the project leader of a "non-notable" website! !

I wouldn't confuse notability (that quality of being mentioned by particular kinds of media) with relevance. There are plenty of notable sites out there that nobody visits anymore.

One need only do a few internet searches to see what the relevant sites are, and having an article about those places doesn't make them any more (or less) relevant.

If anything, it might be in our best interests to ensure no such article exists. As long as they link to us, we can always tell our own story in an "about" page.

[Joe Beaudoin Jr.]

I wouldn't confuse notability (that quality of being mentioned by particular kinds of media) with relevance. There are plenty of notable sites out there that nobody visits anymore.

One need only do a few internet searches to see what the relevant sites are, and having an article about those places doesn't make them any more (or less) relevant.

If anything, it might be in our best interests to ensure no such article exists. As long as they link to us, we can always tell our own story in an "about" page.

That's true. For example, look at the "Lurker's Guide"... Sure, it's a notable website, but very few people visit it any more as Babylon 5 has long since passed, despite the occasional content release: namely the script books and The Lost Tales.

People have moved on, but the site remains for those who want to go back to it.

Anyway, given Wikipedia's quality control issues, I do agree that it may be in our best interest to just have links to us on their articles. We can write our own history page on the Battlestar Wiki itself... which we may want to do anyway, just for the glory of it all, as Romo Lampkin would say.

It doesn't take the sting out of the deletion though, since Wikipedians do seem to target our article, and not the other two I had mentioned. (Basically, I was "offered" to run those through AFD myself, but those who offered that "kind suggestion" likely knew full well that I would run afoul of another grand "policy" of theirs... which would be "disrupting Wikipedia in order to make a point (http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/WP:POINT)".) :mad:

Which was the point I was trying to make, but was dismissed by certain users, primarily the user "WLU"...

Anyway, to continue on like a broken record, as long as they don't delete our links from their Battlestar pages, I'll be relatively happy.

[Steelviper]

Anyway, given Wikipedia's quality control issues, I do agree that it may be in our best interest to just have links to us on their articles. We can write our own history page on the Battlestar Wiki itself... which we may want to do anyway, just for the glory of it all, as Romo Lampkin would say.

We should do that (the self-history). Maybe a good project for the offseason. I suspect s4 will keep us busy.