Talk:Red Hot Chili Peppers/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 8

Straw poll on links to fansites

Here is a straw poll to see where we're at. Place your name in the section that shows your opinion of how links to fansites should be dealt with. Note that this is not a vote, but a way to guage consensus. By no means are the results of this staw poll forced to be what happens to the links. Cowman109Talk 01:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Have no links to fansites
  1. maxcap 01:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Ideogram 02:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. IrishGuy talk 02:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Xinit 06:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. HJ 22:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jtrost (T | C | #) 16:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all links to fansites
  • Keep only a certain number of fansites (which will lead back to determining which ones should stay and which should go)
  1. MyLovelyMan 02:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Jason1978 07:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. ReadyMade 17:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Seligmeister 23:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC) First edit
  5. Miaus 23: 40, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Not a real user. Actually 87.196.228.175
  6. Hog3y 11:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Cine 20:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to give all participants a clue: Voting without participating in the debate is pointless. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Ideogram 03:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What each fan site offers

We'll start from scratch then: let's try to do this as cleanly as possible then. We'll scrap the earlier debate as that was also in reference to other non-fansite links. Below let's have a list of fansites that appear to be possible links (feel free to add another one if it appears to meet similar standards). However, per WP:AUTO, perhaps it may be an interesting idea to instead of comment on the fansite that you personally would like added, you could comment on the other fansites about the positive aspects of them. You should recognize that if you generally use one fansite, there is a possibility that you may be subconsciously biased in favor of that one website, so let's try to keep this as short and to the point as possible. What we need are consise facts about each fansite that show it a) offers information not available in the article b) provides further inside c) is accessible (IE is it easy to find this information?).

If you do not want any fansites at all, it may still be helpful to add the facts of the fansites to determine their use. So, once again, short, concise bullet points to explain what each site offers. We don't need novels here. Cowman109Talk 14:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

(In reference to some comments below) Can we try not to drag direct argument back into this process? A simple list of points would suffice. Ideogram 18:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. ReadyMade 18:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
If you agree, then don't do it. Ideogram 19:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I was referring to cowmans comments, not with yours. Sorry, ReadyMade 19:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

One Hot Globe

  • What information does it offer?
  1. News archives to 2004 -- Xinit
  • What does it lack?
  1. Notability -- Xinit
  • Is it accessible?

Red Hot Chili Peppers Italy

  • What information does it offer?
  1. English language news dating back more than one year -- Xinit
    Back to 2002. maxcap 18:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Guitar/Bass tabs and lyrics, discography; a fairly in-depth, though unsourced bio. maxcap 18:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Its pages contain a wealth of information covering most aspects of the RHCP and their music. ReadyMade 18:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • What does it lack?
  1. English language anything else -- Xinit
  2. English Language forum. maxcap 18:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. As stated - No English forum which provides no RHCP focused community or even a platform for discussion. ReadyMade 18:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Is it accessible?
  1. Yes -- Xinit

Stadium-Arcadium

  • What information does it offer?
  1. Fan forums and content that pales in comparison to this article on WP -- Xinit Facts, not general overviews are needed. Cowman109Talk 18:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
    Thats incorrect. The content on the site overall contains more information than this article ever could. Since it started 4 months ago, its grown into the Largest unofficial english speaking rhcp forum on the Internet, therefore it contains alot of content related to the band. ReadyMade 18:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
    Is there a source anywhere that states it is the largest unofficial english speaking RHCP forum? Cowman109Talk 18:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
    No, what sort of source would make the statement any more or less credible? ReadyMade 18:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
    Read the policy on verifiability. Ideogram 19:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
    Can you or Anyone find a bigger unofficial english speaking rhcp forum anywhere on the internet? Not possible, because it doesnt exist. I think thats verification enough. ReadyMade 19:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. A large fan forum, though the media zone forums are locked maxcap 18:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
    It should be noted that forums are on the list of what should not be linked to in WP:EL maxcap 18:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. A forum with sections dedicated to each band member, and different aspects of the band itself. Contained within these forums are access to legal media of concerts, and information about touring, such as setlists of recent/past shows Seligmeister 13:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Okay, it lacks verifiable information that is distinct from what is in the WP article now -- Xinit 17:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Most of the information can be verified if it needs to be. This article cannot even compete with the abundance of information which can be obtained from the s-a forum. ReadyMade 17:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    1. [1]
    2. [2]
    3. [3]
    4. [4]
    5. [5]
This selection of new links don't appear to be verifiable. -- Xinit 17:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Xinit, please avoid sarcasm. Ideogram 17:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, those decide it for me. I was originally somewhere in the middle, but after seeing the horrid quality of these posts (e.g. "I was about to get into a really really really massive fight tonight, but i stopped, because there was a guy in a chilis shirt there saying, peace and love n stuff, i nearly beleted him too, but he was wearing the shirt, so i stopped, this ever happened to anyone else?") I have decided that I am officially against the inclusion of Stadium-Arcadium.com. There is simply nothing significant of general encyclopedic quality to be gained by this. Drostie 20:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
There are plenty of topics with encyclopedic quality on there. Xinit has simply selected 5 topics which will act in his favour. ReadyMade 17:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
List five... it was easy to come up with five recent examples of bad info; how easy is it to come up with five good ones? -- Xinit 22:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • What does it lack?
  1. Relevance or encyclopedic content -- Xinit
    How is it irrelevant? It's a site focused on the chili peppers. The member base of over 5500 people honours the fact that it is highly relevant to the band. ReadyMade 18:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. It lacks good content on its main pages such as the biography and discography (at the moment.) ReadyMade 18:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Too many noobs, ultra-young fan and too less old fans..so too many "all chili peppers do is good" ) zagozagozago 18:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Doesn't have much to do with content. Cowman109Talk 15:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    Once again thats just your mis-guided opinion. Too many people are quick to make assumptions. Oh and learn to construct your sentences better in the future. Thanks, ReadyMade 15:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Is it accessible?
  1. Yes -- Xinit
  2. Raw citable information can be hard to track down on fan forums maxcap 18:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
    That's more personal opinion than Fact. The phpbb search function is more than sufficient for locating topics and even specific keywords or phrases. ReadyMade 18:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


A followup

Well, then. The only fansites that appear to have a good deal of outside information is Stadium-Arcadium and Red Hot Chili Peppers Italy. Both have a wealth of separate information. Would there by any objection to simply keeping these two fansite links in the external links section? While the info to noise ratio may be a bit high for the forums in Stadium-Arcadium, there is other information available that is not only from the forums. Having these two links shouldn't be excessive, and this is perhaps one of those circumstances where more than one fansite are listed. Cowman109Talk 18:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

No objections from me, both of these are good examples of sites where Wikipedia users can go to learn more information about the band. Seligmeister 03:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Second edit
I object. I have yet to see a strong and valid argument for the inclusion of any fan sites. I especially object about Stadium-Arcadium as this discussion has gone two ways: people who don't want any fan sites, and people who are pushing for Stadium-Arcadium. IrishGuy talk 03:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with this statement. They relate to the article by giving users a place to go if they choose to further their knowledge on the band, its members, and anything else. This would also make it a lot simpler by stopping the arguements if an agreement was actually reached, but i guess that isn't possible. MyLovelyMan 08:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I object as well.maxcap 12:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
In response to Irishman, it does say on WP:EL that "Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link. (Note: fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included.)". Now, I think we can agree that these are major fansites, but can you agree that both do offer at least a moderate amount of accessible information outside what is present on the article? Remember that we are here to build an encyclopedia, and I'm a strong believer in WP:IAR myself. I think that's the most important thing - does it help those reading the article? Cowman109Talk 13:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I think this part of the quote is very applicable here. "(Note: fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included.)" On the contrary, these fansites ARE very informative, and are very comprehensive, and I believe they are worthy of being included. Seligmeister 14:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
As you have rightly stated cowman, you have to take into account the most simplistic yet significant factor in this debate; Do the links help those reading the article? the unarguable truth is yes - of course they do. ReadyMade 17:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
It is hardly unarguable. Quite simply, it is your website so it behooves you to claim it is better for the article. IrishGuy talk 18:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


I'm amazed that this debate has lasted this long. I think all the sites mentioned bring something worthwhile to RHCP fans though claiming your site is the best, bigger and better is quite pathetic. Nobody has proof that their site is better because it's really not possible. I do think the fan sites are often more up to date than the official RHCP site, which has been pretty bad for the most part since they created it but saying your site is the best, it's better than everyone is like saying you are a bigger fan and better than everyone. The only person stating it's the best and better than the rest is ReadyMade. Even though I contribute to One Hot Globe, I think OHG is lacking info like it once did but that is being worked on daily. We don't have as many people signed up to the forum as the SA site but OHG hasn't really been promoting itself as a forum only site either plus I think maybe the name Stadium Arcadium has something to do with it a bit (had it been called Mother's Milk forum the number of people on there would be much lower- I know this for a fact from past forums I ran/helped out with). 5,000 people are currently active on the site. 2,000+ aren't currently active on the OHG site. People sign up and never post or maybe do just a few times and once the album was release never came back. Trust me, all boards get really active when a new album is released. Right now both forums have 12 people's profiles active. Bottom line: all the sites are good but the name calling, the changing of people's info and claiming to be better is childish. Jason1978 17:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Could we get specific reasons as to why this is not acceptable, please? We need some sort of compromise, and as Jason said, please avoid the 'my site is better than yours' feeling and instead focus on the important thing - does the link help in some way? Cowman109Talk 03:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll concede to allowing Red Hot Chili Peppers Italy. SA isn't needed, the only argument for it is the size of the forum, and WP:EL states that forums should not be linked to. maxcap 16:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
As Maxcap stated, forums should not be linked to. As for fan sites in general: Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research. How do we know that information on a fan site is verifiable? And if it is, shouldn't we be using those primary sources and NOT the fan site? IrishGuy talk 16:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, then. Then there is less objection to RHCP Italy, but objection to SA due to the forums. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it has been said that the most prominent aspect of SA is its forums, and it is very true that linking to forums is discouraged in articles. So let's just make it clear, first - are there objections to RHCP Italy still? If the target of the discussion is eventually moved only to SA, then we could pursue other avenues of dispute resolution such as a WP:RFC or a note in the Village Pump. Cowman109Talk 17:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that RHCP Italy is entirely necessary, but that fact that the news archives go back so far can be of some value; as a starting point to tracking down a source for instance.maxcap 17:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the Italian site is absolutely required as a stand-alone External Link to the site's front page; I'd much prefer a link directly to their news archive. As for SA, I just don't think that it's been around long enough to qualify as an authoritative source for information at this point, regardless of the size of the forums. I'd be open to revisit the issue in six months to see if they've fleshed things out like Anthony has been mentioning. -- Xinit 20:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Generally forums have a not so helpful info to noise ratio as described above, so my question is what does Stadium Arcadium offer besides its forums? That would be an important detail concerning its inclusion, as what is most important is raw information not available in the article. Cowman109Talk 04:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

History Sections

Huh can i just say they look a real mess and need sorting out--Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 22:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh what do you suggest? maxcap 23:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The whole article is a boring mess of information. We need to draw inspiration from the likes of the kylie minogue article. ReadyMade 09:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly what I was thinking.--maxcap 11:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
If i can ever be bothered i'll do it, i did a similar tidying up of the Korn article but now i need a break (the article could do with refing aswell). --Childzy talk contribs 22:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Be prepared for a MAJOR headache from the likes of xinit and maxcap. They'll have you on the brink of insanity with their debating over your actions. All the best and good luck. ReadyMade 21:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Please read the policies of Wikipedia, specifically WP:ATTACK, before making more statements like the above. IrishGuy talk 21:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Please read the policies of Wikipedia, specifically WP:CHILLOUT, before making more statements like the above.--Childzy talk contribs 21:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Nah, don't worry bout me. As long as sources are cited, and POV is kept in check I'm OK. maxcap 22:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
So long as he's not pimping his personal fan site, and can play nicely with others without resorting to revert tantrums and name calling, then I can't see how I would have a problem with it. -- Xinit 23:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Cleanse yourself of the truth while you both can. ReadyMade 17:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks, both of you. Ideogram 18:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I take it you lot dont get on well??? Its a very bitchy talk page (quite funny too)--Childzy talk contribs 19:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

NPA

Are personal attacks and vandalism really the only ways that we can deal with this? [6] and [7] as today's examples -- Xinit 19:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism is a strong word for enlightening someone. ReadyMade 19:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but appropriate when you insert your teachings on a user's page. --Xinit 19:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I have had it. I'm simply not going to respond to ReadyMade anymore. Ideogram 19:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Xinit, I must apologise for editing maxcaps user page. ReadyMade 20:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red_Hot_Chili_Peppers/Archive_4&oldid=1136236929"