Talk:Shanty Raid-io

Behind the Scenes stuff
How much of a page should I give those working at Shanty but aren't Jockeys?--Gloraelin 16:52, October 7, 2005 (PDT)
 * I'm not even sure if I should have linked the names, to be honest. --Thunderbird 17:04, 7 October 2005 (PDT)
 * It is a much more nebulous area of "notability." The SJs are the voice of Shanty Raidio, the staff is ... the staff.  I'd say leave the names unlinked for the moment until there's been some more discussion on it.--Fiddler 20:15, 7 October 2005 (PDT)
 * I agree with Fiddler --Barrister 02:00, 8 October 2005 (PDT)
 * I agree with him as well. Mostly because if we link/articleize people for being staff for things like website maintenance, then we'd have to let anyone that maintains any YPP related site make an article as well.  That could be a vast pile o' people that are unlikely to be looked up in the wiki. Just as a benchmark, articles on pirates don't get viewed very much currently.  The highest ranked pirate page is Cleaver (pirate) (1,211 views), coming in as the 115th most popular article.  Nemo (1,188 views) is 118th, then the next pirate article is down at 185th (Artemis (805 views)).  In terms of non-OOO employed pirate articles, the first one on the list is Robertdonald (614 views) at spot #248.  Second is Salmon (508 views) at #307 and third is Scupperer (404 views) at #392. --Guppymomma 20:42, 8 October 2005 (PDT)

I have a question about the Shanty Jockey pages related to this conversation. Whilst they are obviously notable for their DJing, they don't all technically fit the individual pirate pages policy. What's the deal with that? Were the pages made before the YPPedia came up with a policy on it? Is Shanty considered to be an exception to the rules? Thanks for clearing this up for me in advance. --Featherfin 20:44, 4 February 2006 (PST)


 * The vanity guidelines are guidelines. There are other ways to be notable besides winning a familiar, being a captain, etc.  The Shanty Jockeys fit the criteria in my opinion. --Barrister 20:48, 4 February 2006 (PST)
 * Oh, I see now. Thanks. :) Featherfin 20:50, 4 February 2006 (PST)