Forum:Articles on fan sites?

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Articles on fan sites?
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 8 March 2009 by Azaz129.

Should we include articles about fan sites, such as Tip.It and Zybez? Since Wikipedia has articles on major websites, I don't see any problem with including articles on fan sites, provided they are notable enough. --Ixfd64 07:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Keeping in mind both notability (as you've mentioned) and avoiding those "fan sites" that are mainly dedicated to breaking rules, I don't have too much of a problem. RuneHQ, Sal's, Truthscape, and a couple of others should be considered as well. There are some "hacking" websites like Moparscape that I would question, but I'd leave that on a case by case basis that could be decided by the community. --Robert Horning 16:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
There are far too many popular runescape fansites to begin listing even the popular ones. Then we might have to deal with people from one fansite who want inclusion in the wiki, but dont meet a specific requirement for inclusion. I also fear that eventually articles would become redundant listing features that fansites usually have no matter what (quest guides/calculators/skill guides/forums). It just seems like a mess. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 15:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
How many is "far too many"? If there is a legitimate website that has an established community, has original content (in other words, not copied from other sites including this one), isn't a "one-man band", and doesn't encourage rule breaking (primarily about tips for macroing, real-world trade, etc.), why should we not encourage those sites to be written about here? I think we can certainly come up with criteria to exclude some fan websites that don't meet basic criteria that most folks on this wiki want to avoid, but at the same time permit groups to "advertise" here so far as to let everybody know they are setting up a legitimate fan site.
I really don't expect more than a dozen or so fan sites pages to be created speaking from an optimistic viewpoint. This content isn't going to overwhelm this wiki into becoming mostly about fan websites or change the nature of this wiki with these pages. We could certainly debate about clan websites as being different from websites that are of a more general nature about the game. I would think the Clan website pages should instead be on the RS clan wiki, as that is a more appropriate forum for those kind of sites. --Robert Horning 16:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The way I am seeing it, most Runescape fansites are vastly similar with a few minor variations. Not to mention far more than 12 have moderately large active communities (google)If we decide to go ahead and list information pages for a dozen fansites, what will we say on all of them besides blah blah was founded in 2001 and currently has a very active community with detailed information about Runescape. I have nothing against link exchanges, but if we are going to list fansites we might as well list all the popular IRC channels by page.
What about having a runescape fansite index where we could categorize all the fansites by name or something like that and provide a sentence or two for a summary.Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 22:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I think you are underestimating by a huge factor how much effort is required in order to set up and build a fan website. It isn't a trivial matter, and most of the poorer quality fan sites are just a single user who has copied stuff from elsewhere. I certainly doubt that there are 128,000 fan websites about Runescape on the internet. I stand by my assertion that there are only a dozen or so active fan sites with a thriving community, and perhaps a dozen or so others that are struggling at various stages and may have one or two people actively adding content. The rest of them are blatant copies of other fan sites by internet link spammers, RWT advertising sites, and other sites of such awful quality that they certainly don't deserve a link or even a mention. Some basic standards could be established to show that there is a community behind the group. Clan sites, IRC channels, and other such trivial links that don't have substantial content can certainly be eliminated from any such list of legitimate fan sites. Links to such trivial fan sites are in the first 10 links on that google search, and it only gets worse from there. --Robert Horning 15:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally would like the wiki to educate users on private servers in a way that does not encourage the use of them. From what I hear, hosting private servers is illegal, but playing on one not hosted by you is not. I also support articles on the "big" fansites.

InstantWinstonDragon 2h sword old.pngold edits | new edits

22:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It actually states very clearly in Jagex's terms and conditions that You must not use a modified/customised version of the client software or attempt to sub-license it. You must not create or provide any other means by which any Jagex Product may be played by others (including, without limitation, replacement or modified client/server software, server emulators). It is indeed in violation of these terms as well as Rule 7 to create or use fake servers.
I am against linking to or creating articles on other fansites. Everyone will try to create an article about their fansite, including account stealing/macroing/RWIT sites. There is also very little notable material that could be included in a fansite article other than " [insert site name here].com is a RuneScape-related website that offers hints, guides, and forums." For so little gain, there is really no point in including these articles. Any reasonable person who wanted to know what RuneHQ is would do a simple Google search and find whatever it was that they needed.
It is also foolish to link to our competitors' websites. The RuneScape Wiki is indeed a fansite that is trying to compete for community members with the other major fansites. If we are to link to another fansite, they had better link back to us. Dtm142 23:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Some things to consider if we were to actually make articles on other fansites:

  • What is actually going to be put on the page? We don't want one-lined stubs.
  • [As Dtm said,] Do we really want to be linking to our competitors? If they were to link back (which such an agreement may be hard to be made) then I suppose it might be okay.
  • How moral are they? There are lots of hacking websites, rule breaking websites, etc.. One popular fansite (of which I shall not name) had two money making guide and RWIT adverts on most every page I went to. For us and RuneHQ (at least I think this applies to them too), whenever we see an RWIT ad, we get it taken off fast. That one site didn't care. We wouldn't want to be associated with such hooligans.
  • What do they feature? Most every fansite features quest guides, skill guides, an item and NPC database, their own forums, and sometimes calculators and signature makers. The sites should be special.
  • Are they a clan website? Clan websites can get large communities (up to 200 members, plus possibly 600+ non-clan members who use the forums), but I don't really think they deserve articles.

Yes, there are many RuneScape fansites, but how many are notable? Off the top of my head, I can think of...

  1. RuneHQ
  2. Tip.It
  3. Zybez
  4. Sal's Realm
  5. Runegamer
  6. RuneScape Wiki (That's us :D)
  7. RSBandB ("RuneScape Bits and Bytes")
  8. Draynor.net
  9. TruthScape
  10. UbNub
  11. Rs-videos
  12. [That one that Skychi endorsed, I think...]
  13. [The one that Zezima ran]

Of those, I would expect the first four to get articles if such a policy were to pass. But if it did pass, why don't we make an article about ourself? [[w:c:halo:Halopedia|Halopedia has an article about Halopedia]], for example. Or, why not just make a page about all of the notable ones with short descriptions, and maybe a screenshot of their main page? Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 04:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

We could use some sort of notability guideline like Wikipedia does. See WP:WEB, for example. Also, wikis should be neutral. Prohibiting articles on other fan sites just because they are "competitive" doesn't exactly seem neutral to me. --Ixfd64 09:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This is, once again, something that I am totally against. First, there is no way that any other site is going to link back to us. Those websites cost money from the maker to maintain. They make their money by ad's and clicks. Why would they ever want to divert traffic from their site to ours. They all would love the idea of links going to their guides, their maps, their information. Second, what do those sites have as far as information that we do not? Nothing. If they do, we can cover anything in a more timely manner (posting quests as soon as they come out for example). They do not have any information that we do not have, and we also have numerous sources and input. Third, who is to determine which site "get in" and which do not? This opens the door to quite a bit of sites out there. Fourth is security. Who is going to vouch for the sites that we add. I personally know of a security breach at one of those fansites where passwords and user id's got compromised. To link to non-trusted website is a bad idea ‎Cooked chicken.pngAtlandy 19:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm definitely getting the impression that articles on fan sites are discouraged. For example, the consensus on RuneScape:Votes for deletion/Fan site was to not include links to fan sites. However, I just checked the policies again and there is no mention of whether articles on fan sites are allowed. Nevertheless, I do not want to make any major changes against the consensus of the community. Therefore, I will create drafts of such articles but restrict them to my userspace for now. If the community decides that such articles are appropriate, I will move them into the main namespace; otherwise, it will remain in my userspace as unofficial "articles."

Personally, I don't think we should be competing with other fan sites. Rather, we should be working with them. --Ixfd64 00:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If we want to work with them, they had better work with us by linking back. Dtm142 00:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
...Which I think would be unlikely. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 00:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
See above for reason they will never link back to us ‎Cooked chicken.pngAtlandy 15:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
True, true. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 00:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I would support an article about fansites in general, but I do not think that we need an article on each one. Quest map icon.png Laser Dragon Task map icon.png 21:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, we already have fan site, if you mean creating an article [which is already there]. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 00:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not ask other websites to link back to it if it has an article about them, but then again, the RuneScape Wiki is not Wikipedia and our policies are somewhat different from that of the latter. Nevertheless, it does not seem very encyclopedic to exclude links to other websites just because they might be competing with us. However, some people consider the RuneScape Wiki to be more of a fan site than an encyclopedia. After all, our tagline is "The RuneScape fansite that anyone can edit!" and not "The RuneScape encyclopedia that anyone can edit!"

While some users here are opposed to articles about fan sites, the policies say nothing about such articles. Are such articles against the rules or merely discouraged? If it is the former case, it should probably be added to the policies. --Ixfd64 04:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't that the writing of the fansite articles are generally discouraged and against policy here, but that there are some regular contributors who are voicing some opposition to the idea. You are correct that the policies in place on this website simply say nothing at all about articles covering information about fan websites.
As far as demanding "links back" for including information about fan websites... I don't get that either. What we can do here is to provide the information, and do such an outstanding job of making this website complete that to not link to the RS wiki is missing out of a huge repository of resources that can help out any Runescape fan community.
For myself, if you want to make a comprehensive website about the game of Runescape, I don't understand why pages about fan websites should be explicitly prohibited... or pages like SwiftKit (currently under VfD as we speak) should be deleted either. These are aspects of the player community that should be documented and only serve to make this a better website rather than becoming mindless puppets of Jagex. --Robert Horning 12:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Until Jagex makes some decision on Fansites, I dont think they should be mentioned here. Always stick to RS rules. 4ndrepd 21:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)--