Back when people were getting fed up with the FR WikiProject, someone put an 'abandon ship' style notice on the front page of the project page telling people to come here instead of joining that project. I will admit now that it we me that referred to that message as spam. That was perhaps an unfortunate word, but I didn't want to see that project derailed. I still don't. And I don't want to see this project derailed either.
What I have proposed (over on Wikipedia) is that, the FR work team is formerly set up to work in cooperation with this team.
I won't repeat all of my comments here. You can surf over to my: A call for formal cooperation between this 'work team' and Forgotten Realms Wiki discussion topic, to see what I said.
But, I think that there are a number of issues that are of mutual interest to both this wiki and the FR-loving editors on Wikipedia.
I would especially like to see the editors here have a major input to the policy of the FR work team back over at Wikipedia.
Wikipedia has rules that restrict the quantity of fictional content that is written about and a lot of D&D articles (including the FR ones) have been tagged for deletion. I think that seeing D&D articles apparently attacked has caused a lot of Wikipedians loose some of their enjoyment in writing for Wikipedia. And I think that some of the people writing here may be people who previously were more active on Wikipedia. The FR part of the D&D community is not going to be able to totally rewrite Wikipedia policy, but I do think that the FR Work Team page could be used to educate people about when to post there and when to post here. (Better still, the page could link to tutorials and resources that help people make content that is not taken down.) And I think that some sort of joint cooperation could ensure that FR fans, who decide they want to help create encyclopedic FR content, know what all of their options are.
I hope to see some of you, with Wikipedia accounts, come over and add some constructive comments that can help both wikis get the best out of each other. David Shepheard 01:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Some quick questions:
- I assume the issue with FR articles on Wikipedia are due to the Notability requirement?
- Sorry for my ignorance, but what does a 'work team' on Wikipedia mean? Is it a defined term on Wikipedia?
- Based on what you wrote, it seems the work team would set guidelines and advice on what FR content is appropriate for Wikipedia?
- Presumably, we'd also want inter-wiki "banners" or "badges", similar to what we already do for Wikipedia and also what we do for the LFR articles?
Anything else I'm missing? In short, what are the next steps?
I believe you're right in that most contributors to the Project were getting fed up with wikipedia's rules on notability and their policy on fictional content. My question to you though, is this: How do you expect the WikiProject on 'pedia to be concise enough whilst operating under these strictures?
Work with the D&D Wiki? Sure, we keep getting very generic D&D articles written by newcomers here, could easily justify just passing them on to D&D wiki. As for WP, I don't think we have much use except for maybe having an external link from their page on FR. My 2 cents, fwiw
To answer SkyeNiTessine's questions first:
1: Yes. The D&D WikiProject has been battling against the Notability thing. To be honest some parts of Forgotten Realms are probably not worth having on Wikipedia, but the delitionists have been trying to re-interpret and redefine Notability and have tagged a ton of fiction articles (while making little to no attempt to fix them themselves). I recently had to "rescue" the article for the founder of Dragonlance Nexus from a termination attempt on Notability grounds.
Most importantly, I believe that Forgotten Realms Wiki has high standards and acts as a reliable secondary source of information on FR. I'm sure the deletionists would argue against that view (probably claiming that this website was populated by D&D geeks), but I think the very existance of good pages on this website supports the existance of a level of FR content on Wikipedia.
2: I've never seen the term "work team" before. As far as I can see, it is a term that D&D WikiProject invented when they "took over" all the inactive D&D WikiProjects. Basically Forgotten Realms WikiProject has been subsumed into D&D WikiProject, but they have a separate section that has all the stuff that used to be on FR WikiProject.
3: No. The entire Wikipedia community sets the guidelines for that wiki. What the D&D WikiProject does is help to pull together people with a direct interest in looking after D&D articles.
4: I'm not sure if that would be allowed by the general Wikipedia community. I think what you do over here (between the Living Forgotten Realms namespace and the main namespace is great, but D&D WikiProject is only a tiny minority of Wikipedia users).
I think the best way to handle the cross wiki links is to clean up articles here, sort out any citations, make sure they are not clones of Wikipedia articles and then cite the page here as a source over there (or at least add it as a source of further reading).
There are some pages here that need improvement - after all this is a growing living wiki - but there are also some that are great. I think that it would be good to hunt out the "great" articles and make sure they are the ones that Wikipedia points to.
OK. Moving onto hash's comments. Yes I think that the WikiProject was abandoned. It got absorbed into the D&D WikiProject with no protest and no comment. But it could just as easily be restarted...if some of you want to restart it.
The atmosphere at Wikipedia has not been very friendly. However, there is a user called BOZ who has really been championing the cause of D&D and who has been helping to take action against one of the major delitionists to get him to cooperate with the D&D community. BOZ has also helped to pull some of the articles up in standard, so that they are worthy of being featured articles. I think that sort of thing could be done with FR Wikipedia articles in a tightly targeted way.
At Zerak: I see your point about verifiable sources. It is what Notability is supposed to be all about. However there are many press announcments for novels and similar things that I think could support FR articles (even if they are in much more simplified forms).
At Fw190a8. I think I'll try to get BOZ to come over here. He is really good at working out this sort of thing. Since he has been helping out a number of D&D articles (including some FR ones) have been given "good article" status and the main Forgotten Realms article has been included in Wikipedia 0.7.
I think BOZ could help draw up a list of suggestions for what could be improved over on Wikipedia.
In my opinion, each article on a Realms-specific subject should have a "further reading" section containing a link back to the article here, provided that the article here is better, of course. I don't think it should be me to do it, either, since Wikipedians, in my experience, often like to play the "conflict of interest" card, and I do not contribute to Wikipedia regularly enough to make it look otherwise.
I will do what I can on the talk pages over at Wikipedia to see about getting more genuinely useful links added.