Talk:WoWWiki: Difference between revisions
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
:::That's fine with me, though I'd request that a redirect be added from "Wowpedia", as that's the correct name of the new site. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 17:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC) |
:::That's fine with me, though I'd request that a redirect be added from "Wowpedia", as that's the correct name of the new site. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 17:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::There is one already from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WoWPedia&redirect=no WoWPedia], from when I undid the move. I'll add one w/ the lower case too. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 18:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC) |
::::There is one already from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WoWPedia&redirect=no WoWPedia], from when I undid the move. I'll add one w/ the lower case too. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 18:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::::You will probably need two separate articles for this, as WoWWiki and WoWPedia are two separate entities, both of which coexisting at the same time. It is unfair to WoWPedia, and its community, to force any inquiries to lead to the article on WoWWiki, which is now a competing project. -- [[Special:Contributions/134.197.164.77|134.197.164.77]] ([[User talk:134.197.164.77|talk]]) 06:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:58, 22 October 2010
This article was nominated for deletion. Review prior discussions if considering re-nomination:
|
How long will this article last?
It has already been nominated for deletion 4 times. At least WikiFur got turned into a redirect. WikiFur seemed to magically avoid the AfD axe for a long time. I love how Wikipedia's standards seem to be applied arbitrarily when it comes to fancruft. --63.175.18.130 (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- The article was deleted and turned into a redirect following the third AfD almost three years ago. When a new version was created earlier this month, it initially did not have any new sources attached so a fourth AfD was created. However, during the fourth AfD, new sources were found and added that provided evidence that the wiki and the article now meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. Nothing arbitrary about it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
WoWWiki's about page
For reference, WoWWiki's own About page can be found at http://www.wowwiki.com/WoWWiki:About Kirkburn (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
WoWWiki's wiki rank?
Is that reference "the second largest English-language wiki in the world behind Wikipedia" still correct? Crowdsourced (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC) (aka, on WoWWiki, dakhma)
- "It has been called that". --Izno (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Izno. Do you have any advice on where to verify the ranking? Is there a site that tracks stats on English-language wikis? Crowdsourced (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Funnily enough, on meta. --Izno (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- The list on Meta currently has it as number 91. Some on the list are not English language of course. Secretlondon (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Funnily enough, on meta. --Izno (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
NPOV
This article seems to be biased and just showering WOWwiki in pride. Especially where the first thing it mentions is the "nicknames" it has been given, which all make the wiki seem like the most perfect website on the internet. The nicknames belong in a different area of the article, rather than the first paragraph. The first paragraph should state what the wiki is actually about and what is on it. Does anyone else feel this way too? --Seahorseruler (Talk Page) (Contribs) (Report a Vandal) 19:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Feel free to find sources which say differently which can be relied on. Unfortunately, there aren't so many of those; this article's rather scrounged up already, so I do not think you will be able to change the state of the article... The nicknames are placed fine, though they might be able to be moved to the description section. NPOV is more about the sources, anyway; if the sources say it, go with it (the exception usually being science articles and WEIGHT). --Izno (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- We are indeed constrained by reliable sources. I would love to include my pet criticisms of the site, as well as push back against the somewhat grandiose claims made in Lee Sherlock's article. But I don't think sourcing exists to substantiate those issues. I would support moving the nicknames down from the lede, and possibly removing one. The reason I didn't do that when I rescued the article from deletion was that it wasn't a primary concern in the deletion discussion. Protonk (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Page title change
Are there any sources for the change? I go to WoWWiki and still see the same name. Protonk (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- See the links http://www.wowwiki.com/Forum:Migration_plans_update and http://www.wowpedia.org/Wowpedia:About. They are on the new site, now called http://www.WoWPedia.org. This is as much of a reliable source as we can get for information on the move at this time. Any edits done after a specific date will not be carried from WowWiki to WoWPedia. Haseo9999 (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not going to argue one way or another what should be included on the page (COI), but the majority of the current administration, as well as a good number (a fair majority, at the least) of the contributors to WoWWiki are moving to Wowpedia. The administration has largely tired of Wikia's corporate overlording. As Wikia owns the domain, that means the administration needed to set up a new wiki and domain. Pity really, with WoWWiki's Google juice, but that should correct itself within a year. The WoW community is quite a fickle thing. --Izno (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- That sounds convincing to me. How about for the meantime we make a section on the WoWWiki page noting the move/fork and revisit this in a bit to see if we need to change the title then? I just don't want to change the title yet given that WoWWiki is probably the most popular name for what the site is or was. Protonk (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's fine with me, though I'd request that a redirect be added from "Wowpedia", as that's the correct name of the new site. --Izno (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- There is one already from WoWPedia, from when I undid the move. I'll add one w/ the lower case too. Protonk (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- You will probably need two separate articles for this, as WoWWiki and WoWPedia are two separate entities, both of which coexisting at the same time. It is unfair to WoWPedia, and its community, to force any inquiries to lead to the article on WoWWiki, which is now a competing project. -- 134.197.164.77 (talk) 06:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- There is one already from WoWPedia, from when I undid the move. I'll add one w/ the lower case too. Protonk (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's fine with me, though I'd request that a redirect be added from "Wowpedia", as that's the correct name of the new site. --Izno (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- That sounds convincing to me. How about for the meantime we make a section on the WoWWiki page noting the move/fork and revisit this in a bit to see if we need to change the title then? I just don't want to change the title yet given that WoWWiki is probably the most popular name for what the site is or was. Protonk (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)