Talk:Detentionaire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Major overhaul[edit]

Making it all pretty and stuff~

I took these out:

Will add in stuff regarding them later. (If even needed...) --JKaizer (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Isn't Ping uh...a Chinese name? Also in the baby picture the buildings looked like Chinese traditional buildings. So he'd be Chinese, not Korean. 69.140.225.143 (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)whatever[reply]

There is no criterion under which the Wikia link can be removed. There is no evidence that I can see for criterion 2 - the information comes from the show itself. Criterion 12 contains an exception under which this link clearly falls. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 08:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The exception under criterion 12 is "substantial number of users", which that site fails. As for criterion 2, the site includes information that clearly does not come from the show itself (like reception), original research which may or may not be supported by the show, and is generally uncited. Furthermore, per WP:ELBURDEN disputed links need a positive consensus in order to be re-inserted. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding criterion 12: there is in fact a "substantial number of users" at the site - check the site activity. In fact, at least one of the creators of the show - an official source, obviously - has been quite active there.
Regarding criterion 2: some information is bound to not necessarily be reliable - it's a wiki, after all! Your application of this criterion is so strict that it would probably exclude linking to the entirety of Wikipedia itself, given the massive amount of completely unsourced information it contains. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked the site activity: there are well under 100 active editors, well under 50 highly active. I've also checked a number of articles, and found very little that might be considered reliable. It's a wiki, and that's why we don't consider wikis to be reliable sources (except in very limited circumstances). Linking to other Wikipedia articles is not covered by WP:EL as those aren't external links; you're correct in saying that large swathes of Wikipedia are un- or undersourced, but that's not really an excuse for linking to another undersourced wiki. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]