Talk:Toytown Germany

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Germany Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hey deletion after a few minutes ? I don't think I have a spam history and since this isn't live yet one can see what happens.

We are still building this article, but please comment on anything you want changed :D

toytown is referenced in other areas of wikipedia

some content provided by site moderator

The problem is that you haven't cited any reason why this site is notable - have a look at WP:WEB. You're also (generally) expected to have a (fairly) complete article when you submit it - either that or tag it as under construction, or people tend to think 'ok, that's the finished article - what does it look like'. Whereabouts in Wikipedia is it cited ? CultureDrone (talk) 08:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and please note that, according to WP policy, you shouldn't remove speedy delete tags on pages you created yourself - you should add the 'hangon' tag and add your reasons for keeping the article onthe talk page. CultureDrone (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, between finding it on "new pages" and tagging it for notability, I see you tagged it for speedy deletion. According to Special:WhatLinksHere/Toytowngermany.com, no article-space pages link here. I don't see an assertion of notability in the text or the references. I propose we give the submitter a day or so to give evidence of notability, and then send it to AFD if none arrives. I don't think it necessarily qualifies for speedy deletion, though: under which criteria would it be a candidate? --Slashme (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many links are required for notability ? we have one for the daily telegraph, does this change anything ? There already was just one blog externally but a lot of hits on google mostly to the same place :D. I fully understand there needs to be a lot more thanks So where do I add the links for where the term is used ? Was advised that this same term was deleted in the past and people just gave up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uaflyer (talk • contribs) 08:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the number of references, but the quality - have a look at

WP:CS - or (if you want a simple approach) have a look at another article and see how they've done it. CultureDrone (talk) 09:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

...Unless you mean internal links - i.e. links from other Wikipedia articles - that's simply done by changing the other article to make the link, by enclosing the text in '[[' / ']]' - e.g. assuming an article said '..and this was proved by Fred Smith in his book....', and you created a new article about Fred Smith, you'd change the text in the other article to '..and this was proved by [[Fred Smith]] in his book....' - if you then click on 'Fred SMith', it should take you to the Fred Smith article. CultureDrone (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks, I will keep working on it. I was mistaken about the references as there are different ways to search this. Articles just link the external site. Am I allowed to redirect external links to within Wikipedia ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uaflyer (talk • contribs) 09:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, how can tag saying this article hasn't been edited for several days be added when its not even been an hour now ? :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uaflyer (talk • contribs) 09:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err 'redirect external links to within Wikipedia' - what do you mean by this ? Changing an external site to point to Wikipedia does not make the Wikipedia article notable.

Secondly, the notice doesn't say it hasn't been edited - it says 'IF it hasn't been edited in a few days'.... in other words, the clock is ticking as of now ..... :-) CultureDrone (talk) 09:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hehe, it was my own entry mistake. Is it possible to remove the notices except for the under construction ? Will work on it more tonight

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uaflyer (talk • contribs) 12:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about the notices, there's no hurry. When everything is sorted out, we can take them off. --Slashme (talk) 05:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will be putting more cites in, but exactly how is a published newspaper not credible here ? Seems like some folks here are more caught up in dropping notices than actually writing content. Sure its all needed, but still seems like the razors edge of policy and that's not what a wiki or the Internet is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uaflyer (talk • contribs) 13:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nice thing about Wikipedia is that different people do different things. Some people just go around

categorizing pages and sorting stubs, some correct grammar and typos, some get involved with dispute resolution and administration and some of us do some new-page patrol in between our content writing. You do whatever you feel like when you're not being paid! --Slashme (talk) 05:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Great stuff. --Slashme (talk) 05:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know the owner of the site personally and can vouch that he is not writing this.

Well, if you can vouch for that, that's good enough for me. I don't know whether it's good enough for CultureDrone, though. He doesn't know you like I know you ;-) --Slashme (talk) 05:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toytown is currently linked to, from, and works in co-operation with three major German news organisations: Deutsche Welle, Der Spiegel and Die Welt, all of which have run stories about TT or the content of a forum thread. The site has also been used as a source of primary research by various authors. BadDoggie (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great. Link to those stories and I will have no more notability concerns, because then we have multiple news sources discussing it. By the way, if you can find some source to explain that co-operation properly, that would be an extremely valuable addition to the article, as it would provide context. --Slashme (talk) 05:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partnership links with named German news agencies displayed on front page of TT, links go to respective sites which feature reciprocal feed links back to TT.

EasyJet: The Story of England's Biggest Low-cost Airline, Author: Lois Jones, ISBN-13: 978-1845132477

Initial request for comments/content on Toytown, cited in book.

In addition, "Editor Bob" has stated that users are free to create this wikipedia page if they so desire but in keeping with wikipedia protocol, he will neither take part in the entry nor edit it since he has a commercial interest in the site. BadDoggie (talk) 07:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you can vouch for that, that's good enough for me. I don't know whether it's good enough for CultureDrone, though....

Lol, no, it isn't ! :-) You may know the site owner, but 99.999% of Wikipedians won't, and it's those people you have to write the article for - hence the need for verifiable sources (see

WP:V). Having said that, you've both obviously put a lot of effort into improving the article, and having a decent reliable reference (the Daily Telegraph) is a major plus - give youselves a pat on the back. Despite what you may think, I'm not here solely to pick holes in people's efforts - but having spent over a year on here trying to fix poorly written articles, and helping with the thankless housekeeping tasks (spelling, categorising, fixing redlinks etc), you tend to get hardened to this sort of thing :-) (Sad, isn't it ? I'll go and find a violin...) ;-) CultureDrone (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Heh. I'm not writing the article, just cleaning it up after having seen it mentioned on TT. I've been doing doing that sort of thing since the beginning around here as I stumble across pages to which I can contribute (usually copy-editing, corrections of glaring errors and adding references). There are only so many hours in the day. I figured my longevity (despite my rather low profile) might lend a bit of credence to my claim. I just don't know what to add to this stub which wouldn't be or seem promotional. I used to be a newspaper copy editor; go on and pick as many holes as you can. BadDoggie (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody objects I'd like to remove both the citation and notability flags since information for both of these appears in the article and this page includes further in-depth explanations. BadDoggie (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An unregistered user has been using a VPN to cycle through and remove references to the newest incarnation of the Toytown community. This is valid information because it refers to the community that the website created, not only to the business entity. The new community is not monetized. I know better than to engage in an endless edit war. If the person would like to explain themselves here, like a person editing in good faith would do, I would be happy to discuss. JMEscriva (talk) 08:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]