Talk:Photics.com

Vote?
It looks like we have need for a community vote again, based on the discussion below. If options one or two wins, we can have additional discussions and/or votes to determine if all or only elite fansites. If option 2 wins, we can also discuss/vote at that point on if if contains the name only, one sentence description of site, paragraph description, or unlimited length on each. Lets have the vote end on Mar 9th.

NOTE: When I asked for a vote, I wasn't expeciting it to be this one-sided. If no objections, lets wrap up the vote on Mar 5th.


 * Each fansite receives its own article.


 * Have a single fansite article.
 * 1) Barek
 * 2) Gem
 * 3)  (just a plain list, similar to ANet's list. No advertising.)
 * 4) Karlos: the article should describe what a fan site is, then link to ANet's list.
 * 5) Shandy
 * 6) Stabber, also think it should just link to Anet's list.
 * 7) Gares Redstorm, agree with Karlos. A short description of what a fansite is, more specifically what an official/elite fansite is(all facts, no opinions), then link to ANet's List. Something like Salvage Item 1. Definition and 4. List(link).
 * 8) JoDiamonds  Add me to the pile.  Seems like a landslide vote, here.
 * 9) 130.58 General info and a link to ANet's list (better and less judgmental than maintaining our own).
 * 10) Lunarbunny
 * 11) Rainith


 * No reference to fansites except when linking to information relevant to an article.
 * 1) Ishmaeel No need for a single fansite article that contains a plain list and/or link to Anet's page either. Fansites are not specific to GW and saying a GW Fansite is a site made by and for GW fans is...(fade to silence). This should suffice for everybody out there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fansite.
 * For what it's worth, I think it's worth having at least a token page to keep people from putting up new pages. They'll at least find *something* and hopefully understand that's what there is, and not try to reinvent the missing wheel. --JoDiamonds 03:50, 4 March 2006 (CST)
 * Other (please insert description).

Advertisement?
Just saw this Photics.com and it kinda seems like a advertisement for people to join the Crusaders guild, does it not? Although the Fansite is intriguing, I wouldn't think that kind of stuff would be on a Wiki. Any thoughts or suggestions? --Gares Redstorm 04:44, 3 March 2006 (CST)
 * I would vote for the deletion of this kind of content. Personal advertisements like this should be only tolerated on user pages --Gem 05:05, 3 March 2006 (CST)
 * Changing delete tag, removing advertisement, keeping only neutral, factual information about the fansite itself, not Photics the player, his guild, or his book. &mdash;Tanaric 06:10, 3 March 2006 (CST)

What sort of a crappy guild do you have to PAY to get in?? :| 06:29, 3 March 2006 (CST)
 * Which guild actually makes you pay to get in, and what are you paying? Are we talking about in-game or real-life money here? --130.58 23:43, 3 March 2006 (CST)


 * The original article said that Photics' guild has a joining fee of 5K, see the history of the article. --Karlos 23:52, 3 March 2006 (CST)
 * Ah. Thank you! That's not nearly as dumb as I had imagined the situation would be. Still, for a fansite guild, that definitely seems like a rip-off. --130.58 06:20, 4 March 2006 (CST)

Bigger question
Aside from how this specific article is written, I have a bigger question: Having this article means we also have an article for every Guildwars fansite out there. Even if we set a criteria for that (Official/Elite) I still think that's a bad idea. We COULD have a list of sites in an article named Fansite. Or, better yet, we could simply link to ANet's own list of fansites on guildwars.com and save ourselves the headache of maintaining that list.

I think this is a policy question that should be answered now. I personally say no to specific fansite articles like Photics.com, Guildwarsguru.com and so forth. I say yes to Fansite with an external link to where users can find them. --Karlos 05:33, 3 March 2006 (CST)


 * Vote to delete. Fansites are not encyclopedic. 05:34, 3 March 2006 (CST)
 * By the way, you forgot a very important fansite, Karlos. GuildWiki. Probably the most important fansite there is, if you ask me. 05:49, 3 March 2006 (CST)


 * I agree. I wouldn't care much about a general "fansite" article, but I wouldn't be against it, either. A short definition of what makes an official fansite and/or elite fansite and a link to the list and we should be done, I think. I don't see any reason at all why we should have articles for specific fansites. --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 05:38, 3 March 2006 (CST)


 * Agreed, most we need is the Fansite article that points to guildwars.com's fansite page. --Rainith 06:02, 3 March 2006 (CST)


 * I believe this is good information to have. I don't care how it is organized (in a master Fansites page or in individual pages), we ought to have it.  Fansites are an integral part of this game.  &mdash;Tanaric 06:08, 3 March 2006 (CST)


 * Fansite information is good; but individual articles would just be begging for abuse in the form of advertisements for each one. A single article linking to all fansites, with maybe a one sentence description of each seems adequate.  Perhaps have articles like Photics.com just be redirects to the central fansite article.  --161.88.x.x 07:05, 3 March 2006 (CST)

Not advertisement
I put this up here because I was wondering what GuildWiki had to say, and I couldn't find anything about it so I decided to add it.

Someone has edited it a lot since I posted it earlier today, shortening what I wrote by a lot.

Isn't the point of GuildWiki some people can start something, and other people can improve it? I posted one thing that took a little while to type up and next time I looked, almost all of it had been deleted or edited.

It seems if something looked like an advertisment, since anyone can edit this, other people could change it a bit so it still had the information about Photics.com


 * From what I can tell, the wiki is about the game. There aren't articles about guilds, other fan sites, or things like that.  --68.142.14.59 06:49, 3 March 2006 (CST)


 * If you believe valuable information was lost, put it back, if others believe it was poor information, they will take it out.. C'est la vie. We are more interested in the policy itself. It is this specific debate about how much of the information is "worth it" and how much is "Advertisement" that I am worried about. --Karlos 07:16, 3 March 2006 (CST)


 * I have to agree with the general edits. The page did not feel like it had neutral POV information on it; rather, it really did seem to be selling the positive things about Photics.  If we wanted that kind of thing in general, we'd have to allow people bashing Photics too, right?  At any rate, you are absolutely correct: "sn't the point of GuildWiki some people can start something, and other people can improve it?".  Yes.  You started something, and other people improved it!  Individuals aren't always going to like a specific change, but that's the general description of what happened. --JoDiamonds 21:08, 3 March 2006 (CST)


 * I am not very good at keeping something I write neutal, but it did have some ups and some downs about Photics.com Since this is a wiki after all, I would expect that people would edit it to sound less bias but at least keeping the information intact. The reason I have not put back what I wrote is that I would expect someone would just edit it again putting theirs back, this would most likely escalate in to having absolutly no information in the artical, or a flame war. -Illidan Icerage


 * Actually, looking at the history of edits, I don't see a lot that really could be added back in. The guildwiki community decided not too long ago that they wouldn't support guild listings in articles, the mentioning about the book is what came accross strongest as being an advertisement, and the themeing isn't really relevant to the game or fansite status.  All of the rest of the information seems to remain, although in a much more neutral point of view. --161.88.x.x 05:01, 4 March 2006 (CST)