Template talk:Wikia

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

Why this template matches Template:imdb and not Template:wiktionary[edit]

Wikicities is not a Wikimedia sister project. The sister projects, which get special box-like templates, are listed at Wikipedia:Sister projects. Other external websites get no special treatment, regardless of whose servers they run on or whose software packages they use. See e.g. Template:imdb, Template:wikitravel, Template:memoryalpha. --Quuxplusone 06:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Robin Patterson and Fuzzie point out that Wikicities is now called Wikia.

For instructions on how to use this template, see the table at Wikipedia:Template messages/Links#External links.

I'm not sure why we see it as a bad thing to give it a box. -- Ned Scott 00:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also[edit]

Formating[edit]

It strikes me as slightly counter-intuitive to link Wikia first and have the wiki as the second link; {{Imdb name}} and similar templates have the target external link as the first linked item. Should this template be reworded to make the wiki the first linked item? --Muchness (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely counter-intuitive. We could either reword it, or simply remove the Wikia link. Feezo (Talk) 21:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linking of wikia[edit]

This was recently removed from the expanded form.

Rick Deckard on Blade Runner, a Wikia wiki

has been changed to

Rick Deckard on Blade Runner, an external wiki

Why? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting (pt. 2)[edit]

I agree with the previous points, that the article should be the first link, not Wikia. I also think that this template should include conditional formatting to spell out the custom wiki's names... Here is a sample of how I am picturing the output:

This template would need to account for the more direct linking format (ie http://halo.wikia.com instead of http://www.wikia.com/wiki/c:Halo:Main_Page). I will work on trying to accomplish this, but complex templates are a little bit above my wiki knowledge level. LobStoR (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I made a sandboxed template at User:LobStoR/Sandbox/Template:Wikia. Unfortunately, this breaks compatibility with the current Wikia template, since I eliminated one of the input parameters (wikiname). Here's some samples:
I am not too great at making templates, so there's probably lots of room for improvement, but I think this is a good proof of concept. I could also adjust it to be compatible with the inputs from the current Wikia template, in order to make this an update, rather than a brand new template. Unless someone gives objection, I will work on creating a compatible template later this week. LobStoR (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Icons are a bad idea; see WP:ICONDECORATION. As for putting the link first, this is already the case if the specific page is given; it should be easy enough to change the formatting if it isn't. Give me a couple of days to test an implementation. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you about no icons. As for the rest, I think it makes more sense the way I laid it out, and using the more direct hyperlinks. Also, to me it makes more sense to not have to input the wiki's name, instead letting the template decide the display name... unfortunately this is what breaks compatibility with the original, so I'd probably have to set up a second one, and have the original one redirect to the new one (adapting its inputs accordingly). I think I can handle the wiki template coding for that, but do you think that is a good implementation (have this template pass its inputs onto the newer template)? LobStoR (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to break compatibility. Your use of a sub-template to hold the individual names is a nice enhancement, and we can make use of it; however, we need the ability to manually specify the name to ensure that the template can be easily customised. I'm going to work on this soon, hopefully. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resetting threading level... I built a "wrapper template" that is 100% compatible with the interface provided by the current Wikia template. I am going to overwrite the current Wikia template shortly... there will be some pages that don't have wikititles defined in the template, though. It's not perfect, but I think it's an adequate replacement. Know of anyplace to get a nice listing of Wikia wikis? LobStoR (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New template samples
# inputs markup output comments
0 inputs {{Wikia}} Wikia With zero inputs, it takes the current {{PAGENAME}} and looks for it on the main Wikia wiki
1 input {{Wikia | halo}} Halo Nation With one input, it takes the current {{PAGENAME}} and looks for it on the specified Wikia wiki (halo.wikia.com, in this case)
2 inputs {{Wikia | halo | DeprecatedWikiTitle}} Halo Nation With two inputs, it tosses the second input (the "custom title" for the wiki)
3 inputs {{Wikia | halo | DeprecatedWikiTitle | John-117}} John-117 on Halo Nation With three inputs, it looks for the specified article on the specified wiki and uses that as the display name
4 inputs {{Wikia | halo | DeprecatedWikiTitle | John-117 | Master Chief}} Master Chief on Halo Nation With four inputs, it looks for the specified article on the specified wiki, and uses the display name specified
Wiki not in list {{Wikia | WikiNotInList | DeprecatedWikiTitle | John-117 | Master Chief}} Master Chief on DeprecatedWikiTitle, an external wiki The "Edit" button appears if the wiki is NOT in the list, (hopefully) prompting users to add it
... wow. That's awesome work - thanks! I don't think we need the parenheses to set the name off; do you reckon we could remove them? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sure, I'll format it kind of like the older style (ex: ArticleName on WikiName, a Wikia wiki). Also, see Template:WikiaNew for documentation on the new template's inputs, or to edit/add WikiTitles to the list. LobStoR (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing merge just now[edit]

I've reverted the edits which changed this into an instance of {{WikiaNew}} for now. The new output format when pointing to the main page is suboptimal; I think this should be improved prior to deprecating this template. There is no urgent need to make this change; we can take our time with it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've finally had another go at this. The switch has been reimplemented at template:wikia/list, and {{wikia}} updated to use it. Have a poke about to see if this works. If so, I'll update the documentation and the forked version can be eliminated. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's good work, it looks quite functional to me. Good call, separating the wiki list from the main template. I'm going to think about this, perhaps later this evening I might try to re-implement the Edit-button feature from WikiaNew. Also, I still think this template should call attention to the fact that these are Wikia wikis (even though it makes the output text longer). LobStoR (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to mention - I still think that we should deprecate user input for wiki titles. If an editor is unhappy with the display name provided, they can update the template's list, and discuss it there. This improves consistency across articles - for instance if multiple Star Wars articles on Wikipedia all link to Wookieepedia, there should be no reason that one article says "The Star Wars Wiki" and another says "Wookieepedia". This will encourage editors to agree on a standardized name in one place (ie "Wookieepedia: The Star Wars Wiki" would be a good compromise of the two). The problem is that this basically deprecates the WikiTitle input, so users will still have to type it in, even though it serves no purpose (which is why I was leaning towards a fork, due to the incompatible interfaces of three inputs vs four). LobStoR (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External link or plainlink?[edit]

Currently, the template uses class=plainlinks to remove the external link icon... I think it looks better as a plainlink, but it would make it may make it more clear to the reader that they are leaving Wikipedia if we keep the normal external links. Examples:

So, should we set this template to show the little icon for external links? LobStoR (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links are suppose to look different so it is clear to the reader, what is and what isn't an external link.--Otterathome (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I correct myself - the template does not use class=plainlinks, it uses the namespace [[Wikiasite:___]], so it seems to be "endorsed" that Wikia links may be displayed without the external link icon... Where would be the proper place be to discuss that (as I agree that external links should have an icon)? LobStoR (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The icon thing has probably been brought up and rejected before, try searching the archives.--Otterathome (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean a custom icon, i just mean the External link icon (that Wikipedia automatically generates). LobStoR (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to change the format, Wikia is not associated with Wikipedia so does not get any special treatment in regards to WP:SPAM and WP:EL.--Otterathome (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


(reset threading level) I didn't create the capability to link like this:

This is the Wikipedia-designated style. I agree with you that these should appear as external links, but where do we go to ask for that? LobStoR (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's there for convenience, see meta:Interwiki_map. It's to do with the mediawiki interface, so don't know if you can change it.--Otterathome (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflicted, unindent) I noticed you put a help request in here, but it's now been removed.

I suggest you read through Wikipedia:InterWikimedia links first; if you then wish to raise the issue, there are two places I think might be appropriate. The first is the talk page of that document, but I see there has been little activity in there. Therefore I'd recommend taking your discussion to the village pump.

As an aside - I haven't looked at your template, but one way to get the symbol would simply be to express Wikia as a full URL, rather than using the interlink, ie instead of wikia:Wookieepedia, you'd use wookiepedia].

Hope this helps,  Chzz  ►  13:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a solution in search of a problem. Please don't edit widely used templates unless there is a dire need to do so. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 14:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested modification[edit]

{{editprotected}} Please add anchorencode to accomodate for possible spaces in input #3. This could prevent problems on links such as this:

See also: Help:Parser function#ANCHORENCODE. Thanks! LobStoR (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have implemented the fix in the sandboxed template. Example:
Please check it out, and if acceptable, implement. LobStoR (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disabling. These changes are not uncontroversial. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revert until edits are discussed[edit]

{{editprotected}}

The recent spate of edits don't appear to have been particularly well-tested and have caused random fallout over the various transclusions. Requesting revert to this revision until such point as the editor in question takes the time to discuss changes prior to implementing them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to comments in this discussion. LobStoR (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the relevance of those comments. Significant changes have been made to the template beyond those discussed there, and several editors have questioned them. All of those should be reverted for now pending dicussion as they've impacted a large number of articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the change (made just moments prior to the protection) that is currently breaking the template. Therefore, I propose that this edit become the current golden standard, or the fixed version in the sandbox. LobStoR (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even that version introduces unwanted whitespace. I'm not comfortable with the current codebase as it evidently wasn't sufficiently tested prior to implementation. The revision I suggested was. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the whitespace (that I think you're talking about) came from edits to Template:Wikia/list. I just updated that. Either way, I agree that this template needs to be changed (whether a revert or an update), as right now it will display a broken link if INPUT3 has spaces in it. LobStoR (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(reset thread level) So the choices at hand are:

  1. Leave the template as it currently is (broken)
  2. Implement the sandbox (demonstrated as working)
  3. Revert to an old version (but working)
  4. Revert to a slightly newer version (also working)

I vote for 2 (sandbox version), personally... It fixes the ONE and ONLY untested change, that is currently locked into the template. LobStoR (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RV'd to old version for now, w/ no opinion on proposed changes. This needs to be reviewed by an admin with a good working knowledge of template syntax (i.e. not me). ˉˉanetode╦╩ 16:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing it back to a functional state. LobStoR (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: it's actually still broken. Please see version I mentioned in note 4, above. LobStoR (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Sigh, I should have been more thorough in checking the versions, both reverts appeared to work based on a small random sampling of transclusions. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 16:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, I've checked a few and confirmed this copy is working. LobStoR (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Requested modification (pt.2)[edit]

{{editprotected}} Ok, now that the template has been reverted to a working version, I have implemented an updated version in Template:Wikia/sandbox. It is fully functional to all of expected behavior from the current template. Updated features include External URL links instead of inter-wiki links, and easier-to-read code layout.

Please comment if you agree or disagree with these proposed changes. LobStoR (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. (Why does the sandbox have a dedicated /doc page, by the way? Ideally if it deviates from the main template's usage then it should use the "content=" flag on {{doc}} rather than having an entirely separate set of documentation.) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I duplicated the doc page so that it would use the sandboxed template in its examples. If you know of a better way to accomplish that, by all means, code away (I'm still relatively inexperienced with templates - this one has been a learning experience for me). Cheers! LobStoR (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just copied the sandbox to the template for you. --CapitalR (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Memory Alpha glitch[edit]

{{editprotected}} A glitch was identified at Template talk:Memoryalpha that links with special characters have problems, stemming from the use of anchorencode:

The sandbox has been reverted to use the [[Wikia:___]] namespace. Please check over, and when satisfied, copy over to the template. LobStoR (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High-risk/-use[edit]

{{editprotected}} Can {{high-risk}} be changed to {{high-use}}. Any maybe even moved into the doc subpage. It's only used on 3700 pages. Thanks. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 okay — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External instead of interwiki links[edit]

{{editprotected}} Wikia is a commercial site with lots of rather obnoxious advertising (see a recent thread at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist). Still, we are favoring them over many other sites by using an interwiki link to link to them. That has more effect than just hiding the external link icon: it also removes the nofollow attribute from the link, giving these links more Google prominence than other (perhaps more helpful or less ad-ridden) links. I would suggest we stop treating Wikia as an almost sister site (they're not) and start linking with standard external links using our usual standards. So I propose to edit this template to use external instead of interwiki links. Kusma (talk) 06:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Wikia isn't a sister site and we don't need to artificially inflate their importance. Protonk (talk) 07:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Really no reason for Wikia to have treatment different from every other site. Discombobulator (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This needs more thorough discussion at the MediaWiki level, as rather than doing it here we should simply be disabling the wikiasite: prefix if this is what we want. Until that's done, I'm opposed to manually circumventing that by altering this template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really see why this has to be centrally decided at Meta before we can even start doing the little that we can do. I think the nofollow problem is unique to the English Wikipedia (but I might be wrong), so I'm not sure whether people at Meta will want to change global settings to accomodate our wishes. Kusma (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Chris is right that this needs more discussion generally, though I don't think it needs to be at meta media-wiki (though I could be out to lunch on the particulars). If we don't get a bunch of editors telling us we are crazy, we should start an RfC and post it to WP:CENT. Protonk (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that any Meta admin can remove Wikia's special casing by editing m:Interwiki map. However, lots of wikis use that list, and as far as I know MediaWiki does not have support for a local opt-out from that global list at meta. Support for that would probably need to be gathered at bugzilla or so. In any case, I think that this template talk page is the right place to discuss how this template should handle the links. Kusma (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be very surprised if there were no way whatsoever for this to be overridden in WP's own MediaWiki installation. There are certainly plenty of differences between WP and a vanilla MW deployment already. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If there were a website identical to Wikia, (but it isn't, you know, Wikia), then it definitely would have been blacklisted as spam by now. Triplestop x3 15:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm inclined to support using much more discretion in linking to Wikia sites, rather than the current tendency to automatically do it simply because a site exists. However, in considering this proposal, we should keep in mind that a lot of fiction-related material (TV episodes, characters and so on) was deleted from Wikipedia with the justification that it could be transferred to Wikia sites instead. If we cut the ties to Wikia without addressing that divisive issue, we will be abandoning a lot of content and inadvertently causing a much bigger problem. --Ckatzchatspy 18:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Let's just remove the nofollow attribute. Wikia is still a good external link most of the time. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think we can turn off nofollow? How? Kusma (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I'm not sure how it is turned on, I'm not sure how it is turned off. The nofollow argument (to me) is the most valid part of the comment, so I commented on that directly. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The nofollow attribute was turned on for all non-interwiki links by Brion several years ago. It is turned off for interwiki links, improving the Google rank of our sister projects and some other wikis, and of wikia. My suggestion was to also turn it on for Wikia by changing this template, as Wikia shouldn't be treated any different from other external links. I do not think there is the possibility to obtain consensus to disable nofollow for other external links. Kusma (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I understand. Wikia is a decent external link...for content purposes (not that it follows EL to the letter). Usually the linked page contains detail which would not be in the article though might be helpful to a reader. The fact that it is a good external link doesn't mean that we should treat it (in terms of wep topology) as a sister site. that is the crux of the discussion. Protonk (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still not seeing the problem. Seems like your biggest problem with the template is that it users the interwiki map... which is what the interwiki map is for. I similarly don't see much issue with the icon being removed; it denotes, more often than not, that the link is to a wiki. If there are issues with individual wikis being linked to, well, perhaps we should address those links rather than a blanket action. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As I see it (correct me if I'm wrong), the concern is that the wikia template (through whatever means) doesn't attach NOFOLLOW to links outbound to wikia. While this might be appropriate to the small set of sister foundation sites (mediawiki, meta, wikt, etc.), it may not be appropriate for wikia, which isn't really directly related to the foundation. The actual links themselves are fine. Priviledging them over links to other sites automatically may not be fine. That's what this discussion is supposed to hash out. Protonk (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, and I'm not opposed to the change in general. However, this isn't the place to do it. I'd be surprised if {{wikia}} were used for the majority of WP's wikia links at present, as development only really took off within the last year. I would much rather we did not put cheap hacks in rather than fixing the issue at source. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Just to make sure everyone understands what is being proposed here, this is NOT a proposal to remove Wikia links from any article whatsoever, this will merelly change the template so that links to Wikia will be treated as links to any external site, instead of being treated as internal MediaWiki links. 189.105.17.53 (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - If technically possible. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to play a bit with the fullurl magic word at the sandbox (adding fullurl seems to add nofollow, strangely enough), but I'm not good enough with templates to make it work. Kusma (talk) 08:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Chris has a good point...well, two to be precise. The first is that this template doesn't explicitly prevent NOFOLLOW from being attached to the url (though as kusma found above, some tinkering can offer us a kludgy solution). The second is that most links to wikia may not use this template. Should we make a post to VPT to get some broader insight on this and some consensus on changing the links in general? Protonk (talk) 09:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say that is essential before we think about altering this template. If it can be fixed properly, there will be no reason to edit this template anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that fixing something in the software is the "proper" way to go, but if that takes more than a couple of weeks, I see no reason not to do what we can to patch things in the meantime. Kusma (talk) 11:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    One reason might be that we aren't in a hurry.  :) I'm not, either way. Protonk (talk) 01:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support completely agree with Kusma. Should have always been like this. This was already tried at Template_talk:Wikia#External_instead_of_interwiki_links but didn't gather much steam/support. From a spamming point of view it is pointless at it is on the m:Interwiki map. I would suggest getting it removed so only manually added Wikia sites can be used as interwikis.--Otterathome (talk) 15:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've disabled the editprotected. Consensus certainly looks to be that Wikia links should be nofollow; however, this discsussion should have been raissed centrally so that it affects all Wikia links and not just those through {{wikia}}, and there is no clear instruction as to how to modify the template yet in any case. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus is that as many Wikia links as possible should use NOFOLLOW. There is now a working version at Template:Wikia/sandbox that I am going to copy over tomorrow if nobody finds any more bugs. Kusma (talk) 07:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. It would be possible to hide the "external link" thingy by using CSS, but consensus here seems to be to treat Wikia like any other external site. Note that most of the other Wikia templates depend on this one. (Template:Memoryalpha is one of the few notable exceptions). Kusma (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bad ad has been detected and removed. Wikia's response can be found in this forum post. Angela. 07:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I know this discussion is long since over, but I should point out that how Wikia is treated is no different from tons of other 3rd party wikis, as seen on m:Interwiki map. The usage of interwiki links has always been a technical convenance, and was never an indication of some kind of formal relationship. Interwiki links were never meant to be reserved only for sister sites.

The NOFOLLOW issue has been brought up before on m:Interwiki map and other places on en.wikipedia. This is a technical issue that can't be fixed at the level of this template. -- Ned Scott 04:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikia Identification[edit]

Wikia isn't the only Wiki site in the world, the template should say say it is Wikia wiki. For example:

From those, all we know is that it's another Wiki on the subject.--Otterathome (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that it is so important to mention who owns the site. Anyway, "Discordipedia, a Wikia wiki" sounds a bit strange unless you already know very well that "Wikia" is just the name of a wiki farm company, and I don't think we need a link to Wikia on every article that happens to link to a Wikia wiki article. Kusma (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think 'an external wiki' is fine. No need to add verbiage, IMO. Protonk (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I was the one who originally changed the wording from mentioning Wikia specifically. The idea being that Wikia really doesn't change the content side of those Wikis. Wikia is like a cross between a hosting site and a community support network. However, the content on each individual wiki can be very unique, and it doesn't really matter if it was on Wikia or not. It's kind of like WP:SELF, in that we focus on the content rather than the meta side of things. -- Ned Scott 04:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the Wikia name not show[edit]

Instead of showing:

it now shows

This used to show right, but I am unable to trace to the point where it went wrong. — Edokter • Talk • 22:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was at {{Wikia/list}}. I reverted and added a protection request at WP:RFPP. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 08:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Semiprotection would have been more than adequate here. Sigh. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current way of linking sends people to Special:WikiActivity[edit]

The current system of linking with this template sends people to the equivalent of Special:RecentChanges on a Wikia wiki. It would be preferable to link to the mainpage of a wiki.

  • Current way of linking: http://www.wikia.com/wiki/c:{{{1}}} sends to → http://{{{1}}}.wikia.com/wiki/Special:WikiActivity
Example: http://www.wikia.com/wiki/c:halo sends to → http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/Special:WikiActivity
  • Possible better way: http://www.wikia.com/wiki/c:{{{1}}}:Main_Page sends to → http://{{{1}}}.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page (which is always the main page, or a redirect to the main page)
Example: http://www.wikia.com/wiki/c:halo:Main_Page sends to → http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
Or, http://www.wikia.com/wiki/c:fallout:Main_Page sends to → http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page which redirects to → http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_Wiki (the main page)

--Gardimuer (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not using Halopedia[edit]

I suggest not using Halopedia as a reference in the usage examples. I'd rather have a wiki that had not split up with Wikia, like Red Dead Redemption for example.--98.229.75.253 (talk) 08:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand anything[edit]

  1. Looking at the examples table, what's the difference between one and two inputs ?
  2. what's the idea of a "FakeWikiName" ? Why does it suffix the given name with "pedia"?
  3. What's deprecated about "WikiTitle" ?

--Jerome Potts (talk) 07:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"...an external wiki"[edit]

This text is redundant, incongruous and distracting, and ought to be removed. "*Title at WhateverWiki" is sufficient and properly consistent with the rest of Category:External link templates. Skomorokh 13:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, and i would add that i think that the output should state "on Wikia", to be more thorough and to give credit where is due. --Jerome Potts (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to external wikia home pages[edit]

For some Wikia wikis, we have an article on Wikipedia about them e.g. Wookieepedia and Memory Alpha. For these, the 2nd link should ideally link to our article instead of to the wiki's homepage. I changed the {{Wookieepedia}} as an example, and {{Memoryalpha}} already does this. Even if we don't have an article about a specific wiki, I think we should link to Wikia instead of the wiki's homepage e.g. "John-117 on Halo Nation, a Wikia wiki". Otherwise we are linking to the wiki twice. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikia code links[edit]

Aha, I see the wiki code that it contains Wikia community links (instead of external links).

This should work with the wiki code links to Wikia from Wikipedia rather than using the Wikia template. --Allen talk 05:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but the template adds more features, such as tracking —PC-XT+ 06:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the template deliberately uses external links as the wikia: prefix links are not decorated with the "nofollow" attribute. —Kusma (t·c) 08:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Wikia&oldid=1023709321"