Wikipedia talk:Alternative outlets

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Essays
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
 Mid  This page has been rated as Mid-impact on the project's impact scale.
 

NSK[edit]

Resolved: No one has responded to this question in almost 4 years.

Anyone else have concerns with the amount of advertising of wikinerds by NSK on wikipedia? The bellman 09:17, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)

What is NSK? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

JnanaBase[edit]

Resolved: Moot noise; no issue (other than tact) raised in over 3 years.

Hello, I would like some Wikipedian to add JnanaBase to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. JnanaBase is a wiki which allows you to do anything you want as long as you stay within the minimum possible legal and decency limitations. We accept Wikipedia:Votes for deletion articles and articles deleted from Wikipedia as long they are legal and not copyright violations. Thanks for considering my wiki for inclusion to your Alternative outlets page. Wikinerd 06:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

  • So do Geocities, Angelfire and any other free website. Given the lack of size, traffic and importance of your site (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/JnanaBase) I'd suggest you do not promote it here. Wikipedia is not a webguide. Radiant_>|< 08:59, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Nikolaos S. Karastathis (NSK), if that's who you are: as I'm sure you know very well, this page used to contain a description of JnanaBase. Your request is disingenuous. I originally created this page, and I am the one who originally included JnanaBase on it. I am not the one who deleted it, but your recent shenanigans in attempting to use Wikipedia for promotion of your website, have angered me to the point where I no longer assume good faith. Do not expect me to help you. I strongly advise any Wikipedians tempted to respond to this request not to do so until they have familiarized themselves with Wikinerd's recent activities, which have brought him into conflict with the community. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Whatever the merits of either side of this old squabble, I would advise significantly less heavy-handed abuse of boldfacing. If you can't make your point without screaming, you do not actually have a valid point to make. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Google Base[edit]

Resolved: Moot, and off-target to begin with.

Would Google Base [1]be a good alternative outlet? 168.209.98.35 19:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Databases aren't wikis. Google has it's own ostensible WP competitor now (actually more of a competitor to AllExperts.com and similar sites). Flagging this topic as resolved. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Template[edit]

Perhaps this is not in the spirit of Wikipedia but I was wondering if there was a template that could direct some vandals to try these alternatives.--Dylan Lake 22:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge in from Not Wikipedia[edit]

Resolved: Non-controversial move unchallenged for over a year.

I am merging in content from the "Wikipedia:Not Wikipedia" page, which is now just a redirect to this page. See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Not Wikipedia. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

XeNTaXWiki?[edit]

I understand that this probably sounds (very, very, very) presumptuous of me, but I was wondering about the possibility of adding XeNTaXWiki to this list as a general file format encyclopedia. I understand that there are other websites probably more worthy of inclusion (such as Wotsit.org), but this, as far as I know, is the only wiki of its type and scale. If it's not listworthy, I'd be interested in hearing why and what I could do to help it towards that end. And yes, this could very well be a conflict of interest on my part. ;) —Dinoguy1000 00:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

On one hand, having a bigger list of alternative outlets would potentially allow the page to serve more users who are looking at their articles getting deleted. On the other hand, if the list gets huge enough to be comprehensive, we'd end up with something like our own WikiIndex, and people might object to it on the basis of size alone (even though size might be necesssary to end up with a list that works for most users who need the page). Speaking for myself only, I'm not sure how Wikipedia can assert any inclusion criteria for content that Wikipedia rejects. That seems like a subtle attempt to attach restrictions to what people can do with our garbage after we throw it away, and seems contrary to the GFDL in any case. We let anybody copy Wikipedia's non-deleted content, without trying to restrict copying to site we prefer. Why would we try to restrict (or fail to facilitate, by being less then fully informative) anyone's freedom to copy Wikipedia's deleted articles to any site they like? --Teratornis (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
From a practical standpoint, one handy way to organize a very long list is to arrange it in an index. The best example I know of on Wikipedia is the Editor's index to Wikipedia. One possibility might be to make a separate extended index of alternative outlets, and for each one list its inclusion criteria in some abbreviated way. Another place to mention alternative outlets is on the pages of specific WikiProjects. The members of a WikiProject may be involved in deletion debates about articles in their topic area, and they can work more efficiently if they are aware of alternative outlets for the articles they care about. Another way to raise awareness about a particular wiki is by mentioning it in specific deletion debates. That can be better than listing it on a reference page, because the people who need to know about the wiki might not happen to look at the reference page at their time of need. --Teratornis (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
You can also search Deletionpedia periodically for articles you might want to add to XeNTaXWiki. Deletionpedia collects Wikipedia's deleted articles, and publishes those which do not have copyright problems and so on. --Teratornis (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Too many shortcuts[edit]

Resolved: MoS says list two, no more (barring extenuating circumstances, which are not in evidence here).

I updated the syntax for {{shortcut}} as per CAT:SHORTFIX on your project page. In the process I notice that there are six shortcuts. The syntax currently allows only five. Only the five appear on the page as of now. You will have view the source to see the sixth. Of course the sixth will still work even though it does not appear in the box. If I remember correctly there is a solution to this problem in the template documentation. I think I should let those in the project deal with this issue. Sorry I could not be of more help.

--DRoll (talk) 05:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOS is clear on this: only advertise two at most. Any page could, in theory, have 247 shortcuts, but there is no point at all in advocating more than two of them, since no one would actually retain such "information". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


Merge proposed[edit]

Yes check.svg Done

Wikipedia:Try another wiki is completely redundant with this page, but may have some salvageable language in it (i.e. better for merge than for WP:MFD.). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

As primary author of the page, I think you might be on to something. Where I see the (potential) difference is "Try Another Wiki" is specific about articles, where "Alternative Outlets" is more general and can be written to apply to not only other wikis but free-hosting and pay-for hosting sites--as well as the emphasis on images, media, news, etc.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I support merging the pages. They seem redundant and share the same objective, so it would be a waste to split people's efforts maintaining (and reading) two separate pages. Waldir talk 19:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and did this. I couldn't see any reason not to. Hope nobody minds.  :) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Looks great, thank you so much!--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Biographicon[edit]

Is Biographicon an acceptable site to export/transwiki to? It appears to be missing licensing information and is listed as non-compliant at WP:Mirrors and forks/Abc#Biographicon.com (April 2008). User:Herdrick (affiliated with Biographicon) responded to a comment at Talk:Biographicon#Looked at website. Flatscan (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

While searching for external links, I came across User talk:ReyBrujo#Biographicon. As far as I can tell, none of ReyBrujo's suggestions for improving compliance were implemented. Flatscan (talk) 05:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Outlets other than Wikis[edit]

I don't know if there might be another essay that addresses that... sometimes e.g. articles on a film or actor here have sourced info but they don't rise to the level of RS or N, but that info might be a good addition to a user-edited site like the IMDb (not a wiki, though they recently added some wiki abilities for user created FAQs) where their standards are different. Occasionally some work might be appropriate for publication in a zine or even a magazine, though obviously there the number of outlets is so high one could only mention this option rather than list them all! Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The need is there. Sometimes these kinds of non-notable articles have rabid devoted fans who see a deletion review as a personal attack on their beloved star and go on the warpath. Pointing them to a good alternative outlet might reduce the sting. Guy Macon (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
On a related note, what is the rationale behind the present inclusion criteria? The license restriction is an obvious no-brainer - no point listing an "alternative outlet" that you aren't allowed to copy Wikipedia material to. Some of the other inclusion criteria may be somewhat questionable. For example. "Allow content to be moved over verbatim." IMO, alternative outlets that don't allow this should be included if no alternative that does allow verbatim copying exist. Perhaps a separate "alternative outlets that require re-editing/reformatting" or "that do not allow content to be moved over verbatim" section? Guy Macon (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedias in other languages, and Simple[edit]

It may be too obvious to bother including, but perhaps a section to this article could briefly mention that people determined to write on this Wikipedia in languages other than English could usefully take their efforts to the Wikipedia in the relevant language, and include a link to the page where one can easily access the relevant wikipedias.

The Simple wikipedia could perhaps be mentioned in the same section. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Crystal Clear action edit add.png Added. Feel free to reword. -- œ 22:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

computer.wikia.com?[edit]

I have been working on Clevo x7200, an article about a laptop computer. It is being considered for deletion based upon questionable notability, but it also has a number of devoted fans who have been using Wikipedia as a sort of documentation repository and list of user-generated tips.

I would like to point them to an alternative outlet - just because something doesn't belong on Wikipedia is no reason why it has to disappear from the Internet.

I was thinking that http://computer.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page might fit the bill for them, and possibly for inclusion on this page. Comments? Guy Macon (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

TV Tropes legality[edit]

With WP:LINKVIO in mind, can we in good conscience keep recommending TV Tropes? From inception through June 2012, TV Tropes used CC BY-SA, much like Wikipedia and Uncyclopedia. But in July 2012, TV Tropes unilaterally switched to the incompatible, non-free CC BY-NC-SA license. I'm no lawyer, but it looks like TV Tropes has been distributing the work of its pre-2012 contributors in violation of copyright for the past two years. I move to remove TV Tropes and keep All The Tropes, which was created from a dump of the last CC BY-SA version. I bring it up on talk first because I acknowledge bad blood between the administrators of the two trope wikis. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

More info: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 114#Replace most citations linking to TV Tropes --Damian Yerrick (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)