Forum:External Links Reference Page: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
No edit summary |
m (Robot: Automated text replacement (-[Ff]orum archives header +archive)) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{archive|Panopticon archives}}[[category:failed proposals]] | ||
<!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> | <!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> | ||
Is there a page of recommended external links to other '''significant''' Doctor Who sites of interest on this wiki? Should/could there be? and what would be the best best heading for the article, '''External Links''' maybe? [[User:The Librarian|The Librarian]] 16:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC) | Is there a page of recommended external links to other '''significant''' Doctor Who sites of interest on this wiki? Should/could there be? and what would be the best best heading for the article, '''External Links''' maybe? [[User:The Librarian|The Librarian]] 16:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:This might be what you're looking for [[Tardis:Resources]]. It lists various resources for this site (websites, books, docos etc). I'm not sure how we would classify 'sites of interest' though. We don't just want to have a page that is a webguide to Doctor Who sites on the web though I don't think. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 17:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC) | :This might be what you're looking for [[Tardis:Resources]]. It lists various resources for this site (websites, books, docos etc). I'm not sure how we would classify 'sites of interest' though. We don't just want to have a page that is a webguide to Doctor Who sites on the web though I don't think. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 17:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
::Why not have a page that serves as a webguide? | ::Why not have a page that serves as a webguide? I'm sure it'd be invaluable to a lot of us here, especially when it comes to finding/citing resources. Various websites will certainly take notice of references and continuity issues that we'd miss, as well as develop and explain theories that we may want to reference on various pages. | ||
If not a page, how about a category for out-of-universe sites? | If not a page, how about a category for out-of-universe sites? We can create specific pages when relevant, which can describe the content and resources that can be found on various sites. By being able to view it as a category listing we can find everything quite quickly, as well as giving individual references to various sites and resources of interest. | ||
What do you think?--[[User:TheOmnius|TheOmnius]] 18:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC) | What do you think?--[[User:TheOmnius|TheOmnius]] 18:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
::I'm slightly unsure when it comes to web guides, as mentioned the [[Tardis:Resources]] does have a list of resources to use. But a webguide would by the nature of a webguide include everything (fanfic, fan vids/audios, speculation etc). | ::I'm slightly unsure when it comes to web guides, as mentioned the [[Tardis:Resources]] does have a list of resources to use. But a webguide would by the nature of a webguide include everything (fanfic, fan vids/audios, speculation etc). | ||
::Additionally we currently have a policy (with regards to rumours/other stuff like that) that it should (in theory needs to be) from a citeable source, having a variety of websites in our arsenal might open argument for blog posts and theoerising by people to become fact. (Additionally to that there's stuff like fan CG recreations of scenes and argument whether a CG recreation should be placed on an article and other things like that). | ::Additionally we currently have a policy (with regards to rumours/other stuff like that) that it should (in theory needs to be) from a citeable source, having a variety of websites in our arsenal might open argument for blog posts and theoerising by people to become fact. (Additionally to that there's stuff like fan CG recreations of scenes and argument whether a CG recreation should be placed on an article and other things like that). | ||
::I've had a look at some other wikias, the [[W:c:starwars:Main Page|Wookieepedia]], [[W:c:stargate:Main Page|Stargate Wiki]], [http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Portal:Main Memory Alpha] and the [[W:c:dc:Main Page|DC database]] and I couldn't find a comparable sort of page / list (indeed some have things similar to our resources section but not much more). | ::I've had a look at some other wikias, the [[W:c:starwars:Main Page|Wookieepedia]], [[W:c:stargate:Main Page|Stargate Wiki]], [http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Portal:Main Memory Alpha] and the [[W:c:dc:Main Page|DC database]] and I couldn't find a comparable sort of page / list (indeed some have things similar to our resources section but not much more). | ||
::There ''could'' be a sub-category withinin [[:Category:Fandom]], but I'm less than enthusiastic about that option, just as it could lead to abuses of the category, such as every person with a blog wanting a page about their site, this could lead to a lot of vandalism. | ::There ''could'' be a sub-category withinin [[:Category:Fandom]], but I'm less than enthusiastic about that option, just as it could lead to abuses of the category, such as every person with a blog wanting a page about their site, this could lead to a lot of vandalism. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 13:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
:::I'm confused. | :::I'm confused. Why would it necessarily lead to fanfic and fan videos/audios on the webguide? A simple dividing line would be that if it's actually published it gets a page and if it's just some fan, it doesn't. The BBV audios and the Audio Visuals are basically professional fan made <script type="text/javascript" src="/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Functions.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"></script>productions - but they get their own page as they well should. | ||
As to the last bit, we want the speculation and the theorizing. | :::As to the last bit, we want the speculation and the theorizing. Well explained/explored theories need investigation in DW, but the site is often not the best place to go into it. For instance, the Rassilon, Omega and the Other Guy, (I forget where it links to) is very thoroughly researched and cited, but there are a number of theories that are more or less original.--[[User:TheOmnius|TheOmnius]] 16:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 22:48, 6 May 2012
Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → External Links Reference Page
Is there a page of recommended external links to other significant Doctor Who sites of interest on this wiki? Should/could there be? and what would be the best best heading for the article, External Links maybe? The Librarian 16:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- This might be what you're looking for Tardis:Resources. It lists various resources for this site (websites, books, docos etc). I'm not sure how we would classify 'sites of interest' though. We don't just want to have a page that is a webguide to Doctor Who sites on the web though I don't think. --Tangerineduel 17:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Why not have a page that serves as a webguide? I'm sure it'd be invaluable to a lot of us here, especially when it comes to finding/citing resources. Various websites will certainly take notice of references and continuity issues that we'd miss, as well as develop and explain theories that we may want to reference on various pages.
If not a page, how about a category for out-of-universe sites? We can create specific pages when relevant, which can describe the content and resources that can be found on various sites. By being able to view it as a category listing we can find everything quite quickly, as well as giving individual references to various sites and resources of interest.
What do you think?--TheOmnius 18:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm slightly unsure when it comes to web guides, as mentioned the Tardis:Resources does have a list of resources to use. But a webguide would by the nature of a webguide include everything (fanfic, fan vids/audios, speculation etc).
- Additionally we currently have a policy (with regards to rumours/other stuff like that) that it should (in theory needs to be) from a citeable source, having a variety of websites in our arsenal might open argument for blog posts and theoerising by people to become fact. (Additionally to that there's stuff like fan CG recreations of scenes and argument whether a CG recreation should be placed on an article and other things like that).
- I've had a look at some other wikias, the Wookieepedia, Stargate Wiki, Memory Alpha and the DC database and I couldn't find a comparable sort of page / list (indeed some have things similar to our resources section but not much more).
- There could be a sub-category withinin Category:Fandom, but I'm less than enthusiastic about that option, just as it could lead to abuses of the category, such as every person with a blog wanting a page about their site, this could lead to a lot of vandalism. --Tangerineduel 13:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm confused. Why would it necessarily lead to fanfic and fan videos/audios on the webguide? A simple dividing line would be that if it's actually published it gets a page and if it's just some fan, it doesn't. The BBV audios and the Audio Visuals are basically professional fan made <script type="text/javascript" src="/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Functions.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"></script>productions - but they get their own page as they well should.
- As to the last bit, we want the speculation and the theorizing. Well explained/explored theories need investigation in DW, but the site is often not the best place to go into it. For instance, the Rassilon, Omega and the Other Guy, (I forget where it links to) is very thoroughly researched and cited, but there are a number of theories that are more or less original.--TheOmnius 16:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
