Wikipedia Page

[LeleleleMAXIMUM]

We tried that before, but people started editing other people's pages.
And also editing other articles.

[Dazz]

Yeah, tSR for some reason has a lot of troll followers, as most of you know. And since Wikipedia articles are crap when only members can edit them, I'm not going to be going around and managing all the articles.

[Koopaul]

Yeah, tSR for some reason has a lot of troll followers, as most of you know.

Believe me I do.

Anyway perhaps we should write the article ahead of time here for all of us to look over and discuss. Does anyone have the original article somewhere?

[Kosheh]

Well, Dazz, I suppose you'd have to assign sysops to manage the tSR Wiki then, wouldn't you >_>
and if Wiki editing is such a problem, just could limit editing to members or bureaucrats only


Also you're NEVER going to get a tSR page past the Wikipedia administration unless you have a lawyer or politican among the userbase. They're a bunch of uptight cocknobs and almost no argument will get past them because it always boils down to IT'S US AND WE'RE BETTER THAN YOU. The only way to get a TSR page on Wikipedia is if it was the motive for someone's murder.


srs

[Koopaul]

Well if its copyright issues, I don't see how they can have articles on sprite comics.

Take a look.

[Maneko]

Actually, I think the reason for why your attempts to create a Wiki based on TSR keep crashing is because it goes against Wikipedia's basic rules:

(From Wikipedia's rules and terms of use section)

"Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not:

Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.

Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles.

Scandal mongering or gossip. Articles about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.

Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Advertising. Articles about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style. Article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.

Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project."

Right now, a TSR Wiki falls under Opinion, Advertising, Self-Promotion and (thanks to some trolls) Gossip, so keep it on mind when redacting another possible version.

You could make a good TSR wiki if you make it in less than 10 lines and keep words like "I think" or "I like it" out from it, though. For example: Date of TSR's creation, name of the staff members, a list of the game systems ripped and an estimate of the sprites available to date will be more than enough to suit Wikipedia's standards as an informative entry, but adding things as TSR's history, members's historial, rivalities and personal views would send Wikipedia's staff against it again.

[Shroob2]

All right, let me make this clear, as no one in this topic seems to get it.

Wiki - a Website
Wikipedia - a Wiki
Page - something on a Wiki

[Maneko]

Good aclaration, but my point still remains- I remember a previous attempt of creating a TSR Wikipedia article that included gems like:

"STFU, TSR is the best site period and unless u can prove me wrong don't reply to this, ta-ta."
"Dazz is cool... is my friend... I like him... "

Who the hell talks like that? Would you write an essay or report that way?
The more neutral and concise the article is, the less likely will be to atract vandals, trolls and deletions, keep this on mind.

[Mewthriii]

Ultimately, I think we need to do a sandbox of the article and perfect it BEFORE we post it just to make sure that it passes for a decent Wikipedia article...and once it's done we have to find a way to prevent editing from members other than certain chosen editors, if possible (I heard one time that it was).

[des]

the wikipedia didnt work last time, i dont think it'll really work this time.

remember pixelDOT?