Talk:List of Newsletter Communities

Fanlore Gardeners, I just realize that I titled this page incorrectly; it should be Newsletter/Newsletter Communities as it is a subpage of Newsletter. Could you change it? --wistfuljane 15:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done! --rache 15:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --wistfuljane 15:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm just wondering why in the LOTR RPS section Four Lobsters got renamed to Lotrips Newsletter? The name of the newsletter actually was Four Lobsters; it's not just the LJ id. -- Ghani 22:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Initially, I named it LotRiPS Newsletter after the journal's title, but I fixed it to Four Lobsters now. --wistfuljane 23:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the Clark/Lois newsletter is not just for SV, but also for the TV-series Lois&Clark and just the pairing in general in all media, at least that's what it says on its info page. I think it is wrong to list it as a subsection of SV.--Ratcreature 01:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I moved the Clark/Lois newsletter to its own header under Superman. Is that better, do you think? --wistfuljane 18:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Defunct and/or deleted newsletters

I think defunct and deleted newsletters should remain on the list, because it is not just for reference but also a fannish history wiki, so the record of previous comms is interesting too.--Ratcreature 20:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree for defunct newsletters, but newsletters whose communities have been deleted and that has no articles written about them, I'm less uncertain if only because of dead links. But thinking about it, I guess we could only remove the url link to the community, leave the wiki link add a note about it being deleted? --wistfuljane 06:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

In articles about sites that aren't there anymore I have included the previous URLs as information to be clear which site it was, but I can see leaving that out on plain lists. I think they are more likely to have articles written about them if they are included here as wikilinks. I mean, I use the list of wanted pages to ge ideas what articles to start, for example.--Ratcreature 09:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Avatar newsletter

That lj link for the Avatar newsletter says the journal is gone and purged. Should a note be made of it next to the entry, or should the Avatar entry be deleted? Mrs. Potato Head 13:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it should be deleted. This is not just for current newsletters. IMO there should just be made a note, like "defunct" or something next to the link, and maybe someone will still eventually add some details about it.--RatCreature 13:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not just defunct, which I take to mean as "not active anymore". The journal is completely gone. Should the note then say "purged and deleted"? Mrs. Potato Head 14:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I meant the link was defunct, which I in the context of links understand to mean "not there anymore". But if you think it clearer to say "deleted and purged", that's fine with me. I just think former newsletters, regardless of whether remnants of them are there or not, should remain listed here.--RatCreature 14:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree about it staying. I just think there's perhaps some confusion over what "defunct" on this page means. I see it being used to mean "hiatus" or not being updated anymore, which is different than a journal being eradicated. Mrs. Potato Head 14:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)