Talk:Red Hot Chili Peppers/Archive 3

message: Please do sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) this will add a timestamp.  Ideogram 23:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please sign your comments with four tildes (~&#126;~~) 

message: All right, I'm sick of this mediation. We aren't going anywhere; Xinit is declaring himself the persnoal saviour of this article and I've had it. Until the WP:EL has a better definition on what a fan site that is appropriate for being listed under extended links is, we won't allow any until that point and time until it is better defined. This mediation has proven fruitless; nobody on either side will get anywhere. I'm just going to allow Xinit to have his way for now until there's better language in the WP:EL because I have become sick and tired of debating with him. Paralleluniverse 22:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is that there hasn't been any debate.  I've listed the points that I object to including those sites on, and nobody has addressed them.  That's not a debate. Address the reasons I listed, or go change the WP:EL Style Guide.  I'm afraid I'm just not following what the problem is... I'm not sending sockpuppets to alter the page, I'm not calling people names; I'm simply requesting a logical discussion of the guide. -- Xinit 23:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I forgot there was another participant.  The mediation can certainly continue as long as Paralleluniverse wants it to.  Ideogram 23:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't notice the age of the archives; that's a point in the Italy site's favour as well.  Perhaps a link to  labelled as a fan-run news archive? I'd like to see the sources quoted in the news stories, but it's pretty good on the random sampling of stories I've hit. -- Xinit 00:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That works for me. maxcap 00:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Compromise 

message: Upon closer inpection Red Hot Chili Peppers Chili Peppers Italy seems like it might be a useful link since it's news archives go back to 2002, what do the fansite supporters think? maxcap 14:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Compromise

message: So anyways, I just went through the pain of registering for One Hot Globe: RHCP Fansite's forums to check it out. It's a shame that you have to join to view topics, because their posts go back to 2004, and if we're discussing the how resourceful a forum is, age would make it more viable as a source don't you think?maxcap 18:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me make an analogy, say you're reseaching the Iraq war in newspapers. Wouldn't it be more useful to have newspapers dating back to 2003 as opposed to just the past 6 months?maxcap 18:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Who me? None, whatsoever. maxcap 19:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. I should have indented that comment. Actually, I was asking ReadyMade in regards to stadium-arcadium, but it is probably good that you clarified your independence from either site. For the record, I too have no affiliation with any fan site. IrishGuy talk 19:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How can you prove to us you are not affiliated with any fan site? ReadyMade 20:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't really. You'll just have to take my word for it. Don't take my post above too seriously I was just kind of thinking out loud. Maybe I should remove it?maxcap 20:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you going to answer my question? IrishGuy talk 20:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Whoops. Caught in a lie . If you are going to claim you aren't somebody, you shouldn't admit it earlier in the conversation. IrishGuy talk 00:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or provide any real information to your domain name registrar... whois stadium-arcadium.com... "Administrative Contact: lala, Anthony  amotechnologies at gmail.com" Xinit 06:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't need to. As I am not in any way arguing for the inclusion of any fan sites. I have made it quite clear that I don't feel that fan sites belong in this, or any, article. Were I affiliated with any fan sites, I would be acting against my best interest to remove fan sites. IrishGuy talk 22:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record I agree. maxcap 22:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: So ReadyMade, you claim you are not Anthony?  Ideogram 21:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Random accusations aside, the point is if for some reason someone is affiliated with the fansites, per WP:AUTO, it would probably be best to refrain from posting links to them in the interest of WP:NPOV. Accusing people of being affiliated won't get things anywhere, though. The fact is we now appear to have 3 fansites, each with their own additions. Arguing about which one we should include probably won't get anywhere, so a possible compromise would be to either include none of them or all of them, as we are probably not going to come to consensus otherwise. Any comments on this? Cowman109Talk 23:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say none. maxcap 23:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd say all, but i'm kind of biased.  Honestly, however, i think it will benefit the page at least in terms of giving people a place to go for discussions, which is an important part of most popular band's fanbases. MyLovelyMan 23:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say none. I haven't yet seen a valid argument for the inclusion of fan sites. Wikipedia isn't a link farm, nor is it google. If people want a discussion forum, they can search for one. Thus far pro-fan site votes have said the official site is lacking in information. Well...I think that is what this article is for. Put the information here but you don't need a host of links to fan sites. IrishGuy talk 23:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To include some sort of compromise, if there is further information given by a fan site, perhaps the fansite could be listed as a citation, but not as an external link? That way it is still included, but only for the information it offers (which is really what links should give - specific extra information). Cowman109Talk 23:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it would be unencyclopedic. If a fan site has a news item...obviously it got that item from somewhere. The primary source should be utilized and not the secondary fan site. IrishGuy talk 00:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do seem to recall that the verifiability policy specifically excludes fan sites and blogs.  Ideogram 00:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I at least agree that fansites should not be used to verify and cite news sources, especially since it is against wikipedia policy.  So, it would have to be all fansites or none of them, as there is no way to be fair without putting all of them in the links section. MyLovelyMan 00:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fantastic! We agreed on something. That's a start. :) Cowman109Talk 00:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly. maxcap 01:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd like to point out that geocities and angelfire sites are totally different than normal, established fan sites. Geocities sites do not (usually) have up to date news like stadium-arcadium.com and One Hot Globe. Most of the RHCP pages i have seen are more like "shrines", as Irishguy said and not really things that could be put into a wikipedia article, in the first place. If we did have it with fan sites in the links section, we would eventually have to draw the line somewhere anyway. I know some of you are going to argue with me but thats my two cents. MyLovelyMan 01:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While you may feel that free hosting sites are different, those who have fan sites on free hosts would argue otherwise. How can one rationally draw a line including some and excluding others? Wouldn't the rational (and fair) thing to do be to not have any fansites? IrishGuy talk 02:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If I were linking to a news archive, I'd still be up for the English version of the Italian site discussed above. Xinit 06:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One Hot Globe