Jump to content

Photo
- - - - -

Save Simtropolis on Wikipedia!

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
138 replies to this topic

#1 LivingInThePast

LivingInThePast

Posted 12 August 2007 - 05:03 PM

The Simtropolis article on Wikipedia is fighting a losing battle as it faces the 3rd Articles for Deletion nomination. The goons say it's all fancruft and unverified statistics, but fight back! These people have cut the article down from its former size. Don't just say keep it, give good reason! Rally the troops! I'm TheListUpdater on Wikipedia:
DIRECT LINK TO AFD

Check out the Disease Research Center Mod, a simple essential! For the Advanced Research Center, too!


#2 SimRabbit

SimRabbit
Awards
  
  

Posted 12 August 2007 - 05:09 PM

yeah we must really save simtropolis article from deletetion.

i discovered this wonderful site thru that article (well I was looking at SC4's article and found ST link at the bottom)

#3 Jazzmaster

Jazzmaster

Posted 12 August 2007 - 05:35 PM

OMG! Who says we're not the largest? I defy Wikipedia to name a larger community, THEN I'll be quiet! Don't take the article away; this is by far the most active SC4 Fansite I've seen, with new stuff literally every day on the forums and STEX, much unlike the unusually quiet official site!



@SimRabbit: Wow, really? That's interesting, and yet another reason why the article shouldn't go...sometimes I wonder where people discover this site.



Again, Wikipedia, if you're reading this, don't take the article away! This site is vital to the community, and more people must know about it and other fansites like SC4 Devotion and Simpeg. We're not just fancruft; we're the community, too!!
-Yoshiisland

Keep calm and take photographs.

Deviant Art Page | The Railfans of Simtropolis | YouTube Channel | Flickr


#4 LivingInThePast

LivingInThePast

Posted 13 August 2007 - 06:22 AM

Go over there and say something, before its too late!!!! We're losing!

Check out the Disease Research Center Mod, a simple essential! For the Advanced Research Center, too!


#5 Jonjonbt

Jonjonbt

Posted 13 August 2007 - 07:48 AM

You guys are doing what we in Wikipedia call canvassing, and that will get you blocked. I will go to the extra mile to get you blocked. Either stop canvassing, and get the page deleted, or you can continue canvassing, and you will be blocked. I am Jonjonbt on Wikipedia, and feel free to attack me on my talk page. It'll get you even closer to a block!

Have a nice day!

Jonjonbt

PS... I know a few admins who can block you...

*** Thankyou for the threats of a block Jonjonbt, it really does show the class and integrity of Wikipedia's establishment that you use the anonymity of the net to come to our site and exhibit jerk-like behavior on their behalf. 

For all those who are embarking on reading this thread, please remember that we are above all of this threatening and flame-like behavior    ~ Samantha, Simtropolis Administration ***



#6 Simfan34

Simfan34

Posted 13 August 2007 - 07:58 AM

What?!? As a Wikipedian myself! I object to this!
And Jonjonbt, what kind of options are those?!!?

#7 Fredrick Day

Fredrick Day

Posted 13 August 2007 - 08:13 AM

Hi - very briefly if you are going to head over to the AFD, here are a couple of pointers.

First of all AFD is NOT a vote - so heading over there and saying any of the following is a waste of time

keep it because I like it!

Keep it because this other article exists!

Keep it because I find it useful!

Keep it because it's not doing any harm!


none of those are useful responses in an AFD discussion - you can read more here -

http://en.wikipedia....ion_discussions

For the article to saved, you need a policy based reason - at the moment, the reason that the article is going to be deleted is because it has no reliable verfiable sources. If you can find and add such sources then it might be possible to save the article.

You can read more about what are considered "good" sources at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WEB

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V


I hope this is of help.

Regards

Fred

#8 6underground

6underground
Awards
  
  
  

Posted 13 August 2007 - 08:14 AM

You guys are doing what we in Wikipedia call canvassing, and that will get you blocked. I will go to the extra mile to get you blocked. Either stop canvassing, and get the page deleted, or you can continue canvassing, and you will be blocked. I am Jonjonbt on Wikipedia, and feel free to attack me on my talk page. It'll get you even closer to a block!

Have a nice day!

Jonjonbt

PS... I know a few admins who can block you...


LOL, No wonder wikipedia admins get into massive controversy with hostileand agressive attitude like that, check this former Wikipedia Admin Out.

So, don't get to ahead of yourself Jonjonbt, Wikipedia is hardly brimming with expertly qualified admins. Too much ego I think.

#9 Fredrick Day

Fredrick Day

Posted 13 August 2007 - 08:21 AM

is hardly brimming with expert admins.


That's a red herring in this case - the reason the article is up for removal is because it does not have a single source (not the forum itself, as it cannot be a reference for itself so don't bother adding those) that shows that it is notable in any way. No expertise is required to see that.

As I mentioned in my previous post - the quickest way to save the article is to find and add reliable sources to (as a general rule of thumb - blog postings and other forum postings don't cut it) to it. If you can find multiple reliable sources the AFD is over.

Regards

Fred.

#10 Sim shady

Sim shady

Posted 13 August 2007 - 08:23 AM

wow...i have lost alot of respect for wikipedia...

#11 Simfan34

Simfan34

Posted 13 August 2007 - 08:31 AM

Originally posted by: Sim shady wow...i have lost alot of respect for wikipedia...
 
Ditto. 
I have campaigned in my school for wikipedia to be taken seriously as a respectable source. I think I am winnning. I have skipped my little free time to talk to teachers on the subject. So to do this is to esentiallly slap me in the face. And fine, block us! We have over 100,000 members. I work hard to mprove Wikipedia, and I'd appreciate this haughty manner of conducting yourselves to STOP!

#12 6underground

6underground
Awards
  
  
  

Posted 13 August 2007 - 08:32 AM

That's a red herring in this case


Not really, one of your own senior members comes to these forums and starts a torrent of hostile aggression about banning people. Sure rules are rules but, this only proves the point that the vast majority of individuals working on Wikipedia in significant areas aren't really qualified to do so. Not to mention mature enough to hold the post. So it's certainly the case.

that shows that it is notable in any way


I beg to differ, perhaps it just shows that no-one has actually gotten around to doing so? rather than a reflection of lack of data?

Also, is'nt that a highly relative term: "notable",how is it quantified and reasoned? Just because you or soem of your trigger happy admins have never heard of simtropolis does not mean Simtropolis isn't notable. Indeed, it is the largest Simcity community on the net. Fact.


#13 football_fever

football_fever

Posted 13 August 2007 - 08:34 AM

So no one can see for themselves that ST has 170,000 members and there are no others that even come close since the membership numbers are located on-site?

For a "source" couldn't someone open a website with the membership numbers for all SC4 fansites?

#14 GreekMan

GreekMan
Awards
  

Posted 13 August 2007 - 08:34 AM

what's happening??????
why are you going to delete it?

I think we should beef up ST wiki!!!!!!
Visit Columbia Metropolitan Area! In new CJ Section Realism at its Finest!

#15 Simfan34

Simfan34

Posted 13 August 2007 - 08:37 AM

And on a more personal note for "us" sixu, they deleted the SCJU article ages ago within a few minutes.
I encourage all ST Wikipedians to vote for ST to stay!

#16 ilikehotdogsalot

ilikehotdogsalot
Awards
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

Posted 13 August 2007 - 08:40 AM

wow, how very rude

i thought wikipedia administrators were suppossed to help, not come to the forums and threaten with bannings...


#17 Fredrick Day

Fredrick Day

Posted 13 August 2007 - 08:41 AM

Originally posted by: 6underground
That's a red herring in this case


Not really, one of your own senior members comes to these forums


We don't have senior members - there are pretty much only two classes of editors - general editors (like me) and a few people who have a couple of extra buttons called admins.


Sure rules are rules but, this only proves the point that the vast majority of individuals working on Wikipedia in significant areas aren't really qualified to do so.


Which is why wikipedia is evidence-based - the article does not current contain any evidence that this site is notable in any way. That's the only thing we can currently judge the article on.

I beg to differ, perhaps it just shows that no-one has actually gotten around to doing so? rather than a reflection of lack of data?


Well the article has existed for over a year (????), plenty of time for people to add such material. The whole point is that nobody at wikipedia is pyschic - we can only judge off what people add to the articles - if such sources exist - add them and the AFD is over - it's that simple. If nobody adds such sources, it will be removed.

Also, is'nt that a highly relative term: "notable",how is it quantified and reasoned? Just because you or soem of your trigger happy admins have never heard of simtropolis does not mean Simtropolis isn't notable. Indeed, it is the largest Simcity community on the net. Fact.


This is not meant as an insult - 100s of articles are created every day where someone claims that something is the biggest, best, most notable X on the web (I am making no comment on this site, just explaining how things operate at wikipedia) - but how do we judge this? with reliable sources.

Again - this problem will be solved at a stroke by adding reliable sources to the article that demonstrate

a) it is the largest on the web (if you wish to make that claim
b) That is notable (again as a rule of thumb - this is demonstrated by articles on notable websites and by notable media organisations - check the links I gave above).

Regards

Fred

#18 6underground

6underground
Awards
  
  
  

Posted 13 August 2007 - 08:41 AM

I encourage all ST Wikipedians to vote for ST to stay!


I would actually like to comment but, based on my observations of Wikipedia, they cannot handle criticisms, unfortunately.

#19 Fredrick Day

Fredrick Day

Posted 13 August 2007 - 08:44 AM

[

For a "source" couldn't someone open a website with the membership numbers for all SC4 fansites?


It would be seen as a self-published source - wikipedia doesn't accept those because in the past, people were setting up websites making claims like "experts say product X is the best in the world" and then trying to use that as a circular reference to support their claims.

Again as a rule of thumb - sources should be written by 3rd parties who have no connection to the site or other conflict of interest.

Regards

Fred.

#20 Simfan34

Simfan34

Posted 13 August 2007 - 08:45 AM

Originally posted by: 6underground
I encourage all ST Wikipedians to vote for ST to stay!


I would actually like to comment but, based on my observations of Wikipedia, they cannot handle criticisms, unfortunately.
 

Pity. Can you give it a shot.
And a devlopment! Here's your reference!

Don't worry guys, I know MANY more kind wikipedians. And Mr. Day, there was a substantial article, but it was cut down to a fraction of the size . A politcal union that I belong to's page was also deleted. (the SCJU)

#21 Fredrick Day

Fredrick Day

Posted 13 August 2007 - 08:51 AM

Originally posted by: Simfan34
Originally posted by: 6underground
I encourage all ST Wikipedians to vote for ST to stay!


I would actually like to comment but, based on my observations of Wikipedia, they cannot handle criticisms, unfortunately.
 

Pity. Can you give it a shot.
And a devlopment! Here's your reference!


I'm afraid that doesn't mean the requirements of a wikipedia reference for a number of reasons

1) It is user-generated - anyone can submit to the list, therefore as user-generated content it is not seen as indepedent.

2) It is a listing - as a listing, it indicates the site exists, nobody is disputing that - but people are saying it is notable - a listing does not demonstrate notability.


Has the site been the subject of an article in any magazines? or on any notable gaming websites ? (such as IGN and the like).

Regards

Fred

#22 ilikehotdogsalot

ilikehotdogsalot
Awards
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

Posted 13 August 2007 - 08:51 AM

there's a reference that this is the largest simcity 4 fansite in the site software!

Total Members: 184,566 (Logged in: 102, Guests: 151, Total Online: 253)

#23 ILL Tonkso

ILL Tonkso
Awards
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

Posted 13 August 2007 - 08:52 AM

Heres a source for you, On the official Sim City site it says we are. Also PC Gamer UK had a 4 page artical on Simtropolis.
Please visit my Portfolio at ill-tonkso.co.uk

#24 Simfan34

Simfan34

Posted 13 August 2007 - 08:54 AM

Take some comparisons, and we have a FACT! Mr. Day, I am coming to find you, frankly, arrogant and annoying. I do not want to call you this. And if you go on like this, an admin may ban you from here. Let's be civil.

EDIT: Tonks, I cited the offical site, but Mr. Day has removed it in the vendetta he is persuing against us.

#25 Fredrick Day

Fredrick Day

Posted 13 August 2007 - 08:55 AM

Originally posted by: ilikehotdogsalot there's a reference that this is the largest simcity 4 fansite in the site software!

Total Members: 184,566 (Logged in: 102, Guests: 151, Total Online: 253)


It's considered a circular reference - again, in the past, people have faked their membership stats (I am NOT accusing anyone here of doing that - just explaining the history of why wikipedia does not accept such numbers at face value) to appear more notable than they are, this is why references have to be from a 3rd party.

Regards

Fred

#26 Simfan34

Simfan34

Posted 13 August 2007 - 08:57 AM

Then how in the world are we to verify this?
I know! We must look at the regulars and do math to see how many are active.
Mr. Day, I'd personally like you to get a custom avatar for no reason.

#27 Fredrick Day

Fredrick Day

Posted 13 August 2007 - 08:58 AM

I am coming to find you, frankly, arrogant and annoying.


Well I'll stop at this point then - I am just trying to explain in a factual manner how wikipedia operates in the way that it does. I'm unclear how that can be seen as arrogant.


but Mr. Day has removed it in the vendetta he is persuing against us.


What vendetta? If I had a vendetta, would be trying to explain the types of sources that wikipedia would find acceptable? Can you really reconcile my action here with a "vendetta" ? I'd never heard of the site before today - what would be my reasoning for such a vendetta?

Regards

Fred

#28 6underground

6underground
Awards
  
  
  

Posted 13 August 2007 - 08:58 AM

We don't have senior members - there are pretty much only two classes of editors - general editors (like me) and a few people who have a couple of extra buttons called admins.


There's always a hierarchy in any organisation such as Wikipedia. Yes, I'm sure it's "meant" to be only two classes of editors. The reality however is often different. Love the ending sarcasm btw.

Which is why wikipedia is evidence-based - the article does not current contain any evidence that this site is notable in any way. That's the only thing we can currently judge the article on.


For Three times?

Well the article has existed for over a year (????), plenty of time for people to add such material.


Oh, you mean like this one.

Yet, that hasn't been put up fr deletion 3 times. Perhaps the fact your admins consistently want the article deleted is indicative proof of its notability considering the frequency of it. :lol:

This is not meant as an insult - 100s of articles are created every day where someone claims that something is the biggest, best, most notable X on the web (I am making no comment on this site, just explaining how things operate at wikipedia) - but how do we judge this? with reliable sources.


Normally, I would agree with you. But, you'd have to be living under a rock to notnotice Simtropolis' prominence in the simcity community. JUST recently, This sites admin and a senior moderator was invited by EA Games and Tilted Mill to an exclusive gathering to discuss SC: S. The next installment of the Simcity Franchise?

I mean seriously, How much more prominent has this site go to be? Will Wright personally vouching for it, before its understood?

if such sources exist - add them and the AFD is over - it's that simple. If nobody adds such sources, it will be removed.


Question: If its so simple, then why don't the people wishing the article to be deleted, not go and prove that the article should stay? Instead of relying on the contribution of a stranger at some point in the future?

a) it is the largest on the web (if you wish to make that claim


I do, now since I know Wikipedia admins are incredibly pedantic. How about you prove my comment false and provide me with a Simcity 4 organisation that is larger and outwardly more prominent? You have less than one year..

That is notable


Does an official invitation from EA Games and Tilted Mill to Dirk (Site owner) count to begin with?

#29 ILL Tonkso

ILL Tonkso
Awards
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

Posted 13 August 2007 - 09:01 AM

Does a 4 page spread in the UKs largest PC Gaming Magazine not show notablity?
Please visit my Portfolio at ill-tonkso.co.uk

#30 Fredrick Day

Fredrick Day

Posted 13 August 2007 - 09:02 AM

Originally posted by: ILL Tonkso Heres a source for you, On the official Sim City site it says we are. Also PC Gamer UK had a 4 page artical on Simtropolis.


Do you have a link to the PC Gamer UK article? Is it in a print edition? from the sounds of it, that would make a good source.