Talk:Wowpedia

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

Notability[edit]

Notability is inherited when almost all active editors have changed over to the forked site. --82.83.159.19 (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In order to qualify for an encyclopedia article, a website must be "notable". Please read WP:WEB, the relevant notability guideline. If WoWpedia satisfies the notability criteria, please add that information to the article. Be sure to include reliable sources so readers, including other editors, can verify the facts in the article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When discussing notability, one should also consult Talk:WoWWiki for the discussions there on the subject of notability. It was determined on that page that WoWWiki is in fact notable. Of course, notability is not inherrited. My opinion: As a participant in the Wowpedia fork, I expect that Wowpedia will meet the criteria for notability in the not-too-distant future. However. in an attempt to have neutral point of view, I would suggest that it is still too early to have a page called Wowpedia, but that there should be a description of this fork, the reasons for the fork and details about it on the WoWWiki page. This fork is, frankly, a significant event in the history of WoWWiki, so it should be described there (at least until such a time that WoWWiki has built a new community of its own without us). In a few months (or maybe even weeks), as WoWWiki and Wowpedia diverge and develop notability of their own, perhaps that would be a more appropriate time to split this into two separate wikipedia articles. I anticipate there will be a lot of news in the World of Warcraft community about this fork in the coming days (ie, press releases at other fan sites, etc.). However, as was mentioned by another person, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Until those press releases happen, maybe this page is a bit premature. Ddcorkum (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC) (edit, sorry... wasn't logged in first time I wrote this)[reply]
Does the many websites covering the split and the existence of wowpedia count towards notability? A F K When Needed 15:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think they would count if they were references in the article, though they might not be sufficient in their own right. For sure, the article in its current state is not good enough. It needs work if it is to be kept. Ddcorkum (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, you said that it was established on WoWWiki's talk page that it was notable; but in the full history, the article had been deleted in 2006 following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WoWWiki (third nomination), and was not re-created until 2009, where it survived Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WoWWiki (4th nomination) where it was ultimately established as notable thanks to some sources that were found and added to the article during the fourth AfD. Full disclosure: I'm the one who initially submitted the 4th nomination for WoWWiki, but as I stated in a comment during the AfD: "if the newly found sources had been previously attached, I likely wouldn't have nominated this for AfD". If the Wowpedia article is deleted due to the current AfD, that can eventually change with new sources that may come along in the future to establish notability. --- Barek (talk) - 16:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The two articles could probably be merged together and retitled as "WoWWiki and Wowpedia" or something with "WoWWiki" and "Wowpedia" redirecting to it. Sera404 (talk) 10:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

Is it written correctly Wowpedia (current name), WoWPedia (WoWWiki style) or WowpediA (logo style)? --Pek (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wowpedia. --Gourra (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion[edit]

and this is goin to be deleted why Computerdude5000 (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read the first section on this talk page. Which you really should have done before asking. A F K When Needed 15:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:WoWWiki which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

Support the August proposal to merge this page and WoWWiki, given the historical continuity of content and editorial community through a range of servers. Readers are best served by having the information consolidated in one place. Klbrain (talk) 10:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support merging Wowpedia into WoWWiki - Based on the sources, Wowpedia simply does not seem notable enough for a standalone article. The article on Wowpedia was basically recreated following the failed move discussion but still seems to fail WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  checkY Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 09:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Klbrain: I stated the opposite; Wowpedia should be a footnote to WoWWiki, despite the latter being shut down. WoWWiki has notability, Wowpedia does not by any ascertainable metric. I suggest reversing the redirection of WoWWiki and doing a merge in the opposite direction. It is a similar situation like NeoGAF where the defunct site is more notable and the active one isn't (despite that one technically not being fully shut down). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: apologies for my misreading of your position. I'm open to a reversal, but am still having trouble grasping how a merge to the former name is preferable to merging to the current name. I've had a look at the example you used (ResetEra directing to NeoGAF), and accept that the example is correctly described, but think that this is a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The analogy is also little strained, as porting the content from a Wiki is different to a similar set of moderators starting a new forum. My view is that we should focus on the page name CRITERIA of recognizability and naturalness. To me, both names seem recognizable, and it seems more natural to use the current name. Klbrain (talk) 09:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Klbrain: It's simple, the situation hasn't changed at all since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wowpedia happened and the result was the same. There are not enough WP:RS to justify Wowpedia existing as a standalone page, otherwise both should exist independently. The fact is that while the 2 were eventually merged, for a decade they existed as separate websites and only one was notable during that timeframe. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're referring to a 2010 AfD; a lot has happened at those two sites over the following 12+ years, including the 2020 end of WoWWiki! I think that we all agree that there is enough RS to support one article, so the questions is which title. My suggestion is that we use the current active title (the only one in use for 2+ years), as this will be least surprising for readers. Klbrain (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, Wikipedia chronicles history, not just current events. Companies, for example, do not have their names updated when they rebrand. Square (video game company) and Enix are pages despite Square Enix existing now. Similarly, WoWWiki does not stop being notable simply because it is defunct. There are provably enough sources for it to exist. The question then becomes, should Wowpedia exist. Since there aren't enough sources, the only place for it to be is as a subsection of WoWWiki, or not at all on Wikipedia. I think all of us would prefer the subsection, and it would make sense considering it was a fork. If there is such a time that Wowpedia becomes notable, it can have its own article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wowpedia&oldid=1199983639"