UESPWiki:Archive/CP UESP Article on Wikipedia

UESP Article on Wikipedia
After reviewing Wikipedia's policies and guidelines extensively and talking with one of their administrators, it appears we fit the notability criteria for having an article about UESP on Wikipedia. In order to submit an article, that article must be somewhat substantial in length and it must explain why the subject is notable. Because of this, I was wondering if anyone would like to be involved in helping create an article locally on this site. --Aristeo | Talk 11:19, 23 October 2006 (EDT)
:As members of this site, aren't we technically inelligible to submit such an article on Wikipedia?  Thought they had rules against self-promotion.  I suppose you could write one if you could pretend you were not in any way affiliated with UESP and nobody figured it out.  If anyone here has an account on Wikipedia that isn't the same name as the name they use here, that might be recommended.  Creating a new account for the purpose won't work either, because they're really suspicious about new articles posted by new accounts without a history of prior edits.  Just talking from experience here - posting new articles on Wikipedia, particularly after they've already deleted a page on the same subject, can be quite difficult.  There's a certain snobbish attitude there that assumes if a page deserves to exist, it already does. --TheRealLurlock 12:03, 23 October 2006 (EDT)
::If Aristeo has talked to one of their administrators, I think we have the okay, though we should be carefull not practice blatant self promotion. --Ratwar 12:10, 23 October 2006 (EDT)

The user who contacted me (he wasn't an admin, my mistake) left the following message on my Wikipedia talk page:

:You are simply asking for trouble if you start your article with one sentence. Create it in User:Aristeo/Sandbox until it is of a viable size, has clearly established notability and got all the "decoration" that makes it look like a proper article: wikification, category, incoming links, etc. 

I've decided to take him up on his suggestion. I've created , where we all can contribute to the article. For those of you who don't want to edit Wikipedia, I can set something up on my sandbox on UESP. Finally, I've contacted Garrett, who is an admin on Wikipedia, and I hope he can give us some advice on how to appease these chair polishers. --Aristeo | Talk 12:54, 23 October 2006 (EDT)

:Well... it's difficult. First off, creating an entry yourself is generally held to be bad form (the rationale is, if your site is noteworthy enough someone less involved will eventually create an entry). Anyway, what criteria does UESP fulfil? An article from a website or magazine would be perfect. Just being well-known among fans isn't enough, it needs to be "proved" by reliable sources. Garrett  17:09, 23 October 2006 (EDT)

Just my two-cents:  Wikipedia has no problem with people submitting information about the Elder Scrolls games and citing the UESP as the source of information -- it seems that this means that UESP meets the criteria of a "reliable source" for submissions.  Shouldn't that lend credence to the argument that UESP deserves an article on Wikipedia?  If not, that seems to me to be a bit hypocritical...--Hoggwild5 20:09, 23 October 2006 (EDT)

My vote is '''don't.''' First, it's pretty obvious to me that the motive here is self promotion -- which rules it out a'priori. Second, it just doesn't qualify according to the criteria (which should have been obvious ahead of time). UESP (fine site that it is) is just not a phenomena in itself. Think of it this way -- the article should be useful to someone who wants to find a summary of topic -- but doesn't actually necessarily want to go check out the source itself. E.g., suppose that I wanted to know the history of youtube, or slashdot, those would be useful articles. So what would make UESP noteworthy? Well, if Dave and Bethsoft had been in a major legal battle over content, and it made a lot of news, with the newsies talking about the nature of mods, mod makers vs. publishers, or fansites vs. publishers. Sure, that would qualify. (But thankfully hasn't happened.) --Wrye 22:43, 23 October 2006 (EDT)

I could go onto several different points as to why we deserve an article, but I sense that no one is too terribly thrilled with this idea. Fair enough. --Aristeo | Talk 00:51, 24 October 2006 (EDT)

:I think we deserve an article, I just don't think anyone who's a regular editor here would be technically allowed to write it.  (Though it does beg the question - who wrote the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia?)  The biggest debates on Wikipedia are always about NPOV, and anyone who's a member of this site by definition will not have a NPOV about it, which is the main reason they look down on any kind of self-promotion. --TheRealLurlock 11:11, 24 October 2006 (EDT)

:Deserve an article? Maybe, lesser things certainly have had articles. Need an article? Not really. I think it is going to end up being more trouble than it is worth to get an entry right now. --Ratwar 12:44, 24 October 2006 (EDT)