Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 13

message: moved to Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/More about notability of fictional concepts in general 04:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bad thing, Ned, is that editors now have to go to a seperate page and add it to their watchlist if they want to keep up with this discussion.  This section was in no way a "long rant" but, rather, a productive discussion about a facet of the guideline.  I do believe we are making progress and both sides need to stop giving up on the process.  Yes, there are parts that are repetitive, but that is always the case in a large debate.  Ursasapien (talk) 07:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not censor this page.  Replace what I found to be a well formed argument and you found to be a "rant." - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's done is done.  At this point, I think it would be more disruptive to move the discussion back to this page.  However, I would encourage Ned to avoid moving discussions like this one in the future.  Additionally, I would encourage all interested parties to watch the sub-page.  Ursasapien (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  no what's done can be undone and I"m doing it now. Sorry Ned but stop trying to control the debate. Restored text below. Ridernyc (talk) 10:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not censorship or trying to control the debate, nor is it disruptive. We've already had other people come here and explain how it was hard to follow the discussion going on. But thanks for assuming the worst of me. -- Ned Scott 20:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it is the draft talk we should move to a subpage, then? It would allow for the focused discussion, without people assuming that every time a wall of text (and that was one heck of a wall of text) is moved it is because of a disagreement. -- Ned Scott 20:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More about notability of fictional concepts in general 

message: It's a shrewd business move actually. The television episode articles aren't making any money for Jimbo while they sit here on Wikipedia. But on Wikia, the episode article becomes a moneymaker. The revenue pours in from AdSense and Fastclick. One easy way to drive webtraffic to the site is declaring fictional topics on Wikipedia no longer notable. Delete articles, redirect articles and tell editors to start "volunteering" for Wikia. There's nothing better than free labor. I hope no Wikia employee is behind WP:FICT or WP:EPISODE because that would look pretty bad in my opinion. How fortuitous if the mass exodus happens to align with their bottom line. Topic not notable enough for Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia? Wikia will take you in. You're always welcome at Wikia, the for-profit wiki that anyone can edit. --Pixelface (talk) 05:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I take it you don't know about how we also promote non-Wikia wikis? -- Ned Scott 05:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, enough with the "profit bad" bull. -- Ned Scott 05:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said "profit bad." I said it's in Wikia's financial interest to have articles about fiction that Wikipedia doesn't have and it's in Wikia's financial interest to attract people to the site who will work for free. It's in Wikia's financial interest to take content from Wikipedia. It's good for their bottom line. --Pixelface (talk) 05:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is, but those who are encouraging people to use Wikia on Wikipedia are independent 3rd parties that don't make any money from Wikia. This is why it's not considered a conflict of interest, and we've talked about this issue time and time again. -- Ned Scott 05:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The mass exodus of fiction content and [[Wikia]] 

message: , an external wiki link template, has been listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 17#Template:Memory Alpha. Since we often talk about liking to external wikis for fiction-related articles, I thought people here might want to know. Note the discussion is not about whether or not to link, but how the link appears. -- Ned Scott 21:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memory Alpha template deletion notice