Talk:List of references on the Internet

Should this be added
The very first Homestar Runner cartoon ever made was made on SNES using Mario Paint. The page title for the toon is Super Homestario Bros. (Also, there's TONS for Mario references in H*R than what's listed. (See? Ugozima 02:26, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

No Fan Creations?
I know I'm supposed to be in retirement right now, and I'm not sure if we changed the rules, but I thought we didn't allow any articles on anything fan made. Then how come there's section for Newgrounds and YouTube? I remember deleting those sections back when my computer worked, and no one said anything. How come they're back here again? -
 * You're right, that content is questionable. I will bring that point up among the admins. - 09:19, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

The question is how we can establish things as notable or not.-- 14:20, 8 October 2009 (EDT)
 * er... Acuatly my question was if we should remove these section because they are fanmade unofficial works, which aren't allowed.


 * Isn't pretty much everything here fan-made?-- 19:42, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

Capitilizing
I remember some time ago a teacher told me all words in a title must be capitalized, exceptt articles and so, we should do that, titles lok better when capitalized-- 22:31, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

The Annoying Orange
One episode Mario goes into Bowser's Castle,but instead of finding Bowser it's The Annoying Orange, later Mario is hit with a Koopa Shell(Orange calls it Turtle Shell)and a Bullet Bill(Orange calls it Bullet)also at the end it shows Bowser, Toad and Princess Peach(also they talk about Luigi and Toad). In a recent episode Orange say he wanted a poney that can play Wii.Daneboe the creater of The annoying orange made other videos referencing Mario like Rejected Mortal Kombat Fatalities(Thwompality and Mario Kartality).--Mr. 8-bit 10:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete
I say we delete some of the sections of online references because really, look at it, it's mostly just a bunch of fanon, as in non-official organizations and companies, and that is against policy.

Proposer: Deadline: February 28, 2011 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) I am Zero! Per proposal. Zero signing out.
 * 2) Per Zero.
 * 3) Per him! Take it away!!
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) Citing that stuff is like citing to a Wikipedia page with no references of its own.
 * 6) For now, take it down. If the references where from Nintendo-made website or famous websites (like IGN or GameStop) maybe we could make it stay. But nothing for now, per proposal.
 * 7) i hope i did this right im kinda new at editing but definitely per what does that mean again
 * 8) There is not a real good reason for them. If we want to go to a website about a game or something, we can type it in. All those references do is clutter up the page, right?

Oppose

 * 1) Glowsquid Never mind the laughable idea that NBC and Google are somehow in the same league as non-notable fan crud not worth mentioning, :you're severely misusing "fanon" here Okay, now, you're misusing "official" horribly. Other than Youtube Poop and maybe that "Stupid Mario Bros." thing, all of the items of the page are backed by recognised, notable organisations. "Official" doesn't mean squat in the context of independant productions that happen to reference something else, anyway.
 * 2) Per all.
 * 3) - Per Glowsquid.
 * 4) - So what you are trying to tell me is that these REAL websites with REAL references are fake? I don't think this is the proper use of the term "fanon".
 * 5) Per Marioguy1.
 * 6) - Even if we disregard whether this is an accurate definition of "fanon" or not, the fact remains that this proposal can only be called vague at best. I'd rather not see this page being reshaped through ambiguity.
 * 7) - A couple YouTube things and whatnot can go, but most of this page is perfectly legitimate: you should have specified what you want to get rid of (as in the sections you want to remove), because right now we have no way of knowing what you're planning (your current definition of fanon is way too vague) and the only logical thing to do is vote oppose, lest you're planning to get rid of valid references.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) - Per all.
 * 10) - Per all.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) Per all.
 * 14) Per all.
 * 15) Per Walkazo's comment.
 * 16) Those sites are just as real as the MarioWiki itself. I know when you hate when I compare us to other wikis, but Bulbapedia does that, if not other NIWA wikis. The people who work hard to bring us those fanon sites deserve to be honored with a page..

Comment
Page was created by IP user?
 * Specify.
 * http://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Online_references&oldid=1528 It's true.
 * Sorry, meant that as a specific comment towards Zero.
 * In light of both sides' arguments, I think the thing to do is sort through good links and bad links to keep legitimate links and get rid of illegitimate ones. Geekiness is an end, not a means - Bop1996 20:57, 18 February 2011 (EST)
 * Yes, that's what should be done - and it will be done, but this TPP is going about it the wrong way: it is too vague, and for all we know, perfectly legitimate sections may be removed. It is safer to vote it down and return the power of removing sections to the community as a whole, rather to than the proposer alone. - 22:08, 18 February 2011 (EST)
 * Point taken, now, I think this will be voted down soon. Either that, or we can define terms and start a debate. Easy to see where this one's going. Geekiness is an end, not a means - Bop1996 07:58, 19 February 2011 (EST)

I don't know about Bulbapedia, but I know Zelda Wiki has a news feed from eight or so Zelda fan sites giving news and insight into Zelda on their front page in prominent display. The system works quite well, actually. My point being that there are some decent fan articles with insight and referencing them isn't necessarily a bad thing, given that we keep only good links on there. (Believe it or not, I actually forgot why I typed this comment in the first place, I think it was a mention of other NIWA sites) Geekiness is an end, not a means - Bop1996 07:42, 24 February 2011 (EST)