Talk:WoWWiki

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  How long will this article last? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  WoWWiki's about page 

message: Is that reference "the second largest English-language wiki in the world behind Wikipedia" still correct? Crowdsourced (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "It has been called that". --Izno (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Funnily enough, on meta. --Izno (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  WoWWiki's wiki rank? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I agree with Protonk.  WoWWiki is the "notable" name for the project, even though a large portion of the community (including myself) are now leaving Wikia for the new WoWPedia/Curse alternative.  Lets give it a couple months before we start making bold claims that WoWPedia has truly replaced the significance of WoWWiki though.  Such claims should be backed up with references before we act on them here on Wikipedia, I think.  For now, all we have is our suspicions of the future (which will hopefully turn out to true, eh?).  There's a lot of cause to suspect that Wowpedia will be no less important than WoWWiki has been previously, but suspicion is not verifiable fact.  Ddcorkum (talk) 00:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Since finding out about the Wowpedia move, I've been checking the Google results for "World of Warcraft wiki". As of today, I don't see a Wowpedia page until the third page of the results. I would say that climbing to the first page of the results will happen too, and that will probably be down to individual World of Warcraft fansites changing their links to the new name. I believe it is possible to use Google to see who is linking to wowpedia.org, so it should be possible to look for reliable secondary sources that are doing that (it should also be possible to compare the number of links with the number of links to WoWWiki). Big Mac (talk) 10:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page title change 

message: Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wowpedia.  Powers T 12:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick question: Would it be reasonable to add a box at the top of this talk page hilighting the Wowpedia AfD, alongside the current box for the 4th AfD of WoWWiki?  Ddcorkum (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion notification 

message: I'm leery of adding information back onto the page, in case a user deems it further vandalism as I don't edit here (mostly I view, and look up information), so I figured I'd post this here first.  
Is it possible to keep the previously removed bits about wowpedia but without the cites?  The forum cites were removed (and as such the entire sections altogether were removed as well), however that's the ONLY place Wikia staff would deign to communicate with the admins and the community in general, until they started ignoring the community altogether.
What I'm talking about specifically is:
:In the days following the fork, there was considerable disagreement over its nature. Proponents claimed that Wowpedia was effectively a replacement for what was formerly WoWWiki, based on a belief that a large majority of the community had transitioned. Countering this view was the fact that WoWWiki continued to be run and was receiving visitor traffic. There was also disagreement over the privileges of former WoWWiki administrators who had chosen to participate in the Wowpedia fork. Administrators who participated in the fork were accused of being at a conflict of interest and were subsequently demoted.
:Following said demotion of the previous Administrators, vandalism and violations of WoWWiki policy were seen much more on WoWWiki with only 1 semi-active admin to curtail it.
Its all true which is shown with the cites previously provided (which apparently aren't allowed?).  Removing these bits due to lack of acceptable (to wikipedia) cites, when theres no other way to cite this information due to Wikia refusing to speak about this matter in any other place, smells off to me. Resa1983 (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Pcj used the Wikipedia:SELFPUB as a reason to keep it.  However, as you can see, it violates number 2 (and possibly number 1) as it relates to Wikia.  Even though the information may be valid in those forums, we need a reliable third party source before including information.  It may suck, but its one of those good rules to keep, especially with active companies being mentioned (much like our strict living people rules).  Forums, like blogs, are just rarely ever usable for many reasons.     Hooper (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The citation references the only direct communication from Wikia on the matter, there is not going to be a third party source.  Since the article relates directly to WoWWiki/Wowpedida - Wikia relations, it is appropriate to cite per WP:SELFPUB. --pcj (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the cited source says what is being claimed, but disagree that it is reliable.  I just don't want to open up a flood of badly sourced info into the various gaming/fan wiki pages.  Care if we get an uninvolved admin to weigh in?  I'm also concerned that it violated number 1 of SELFPUB, as this section is about why wowpedia forked and could be seen as self serving linking to a forum where the upset users trash the company. Hooper (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *shrug*, the content itself seems to me to strain more WP:NPOV than any citation issue (in which case the content should be edited instead of just deleted), so a neutral viewpoint would be good to see how close we are to taking sides on the matter rather than just describing it. --pcj (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not overly concerned with the POV there, as if we allow those sources, it is all just what the sources say.  I put a question up at the reliable sources noticeboard to see what others say. Hooper (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (Disclaimer: I participated in the fork) In your first removal, you killed two paragraphs simultaneously.  I would ask that you consider them separatly.  The first paragraph -- which started with "In the days following the fork" -- cites a forum thread.  However, this forum thread was created by a Wikia staff member who later used the same thread to announce Wikia's decision to carry out the controversal act which the paragraph describes.  It is thus an official announcement of the company's intentions.  It should be treated as such, despite the fact that the announcement was made in a forum thread that may be more commonly used for discussion purposes only. Ddcorkum (talk) 02:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

text: The following paragraph cites a later post in the same forum thread in which users discussed vandalism that was occuring.  Though the users assert that vandalism has/is/will increase, as a result of Wikia's actions, in this case the forum is serving its more normal function as a place for discussion.  It is not a Wikia staff member announcing that vandalism has occured, rather it is users asserting and discussing it.  As such, I would agree with any decision to remove this second paragraph (unless a more appropriate source may be found). Ddcorkum (talk) 02:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cited Material 

message: Wowpedia just started getting linked from the official community site. Is this notable enough? --Gourra (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability is established by reliable secondary sourcing. This might be something to add to the article now, however. --Izno (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It definitely belongs in the article.  This is a significant milestone for Wowpedia that even WoWWiki never quite achieved. Ddcorkum (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Find the reliable secondary sourcing, gourra. The official site is not "secondary" and MMOC (for example) would not hold to the "reliable" requirement. --Izno (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Wowpedia is notable from a different point of view that it being a World of Warcraft encyclopedia. The history of the project is that it started off as an independent wiki (under the name WoWWiki), then moved to Wikia as a host, then decided to leave Wikia, but was refused permission to move (despite all the admins except the one who got a job with Wikia wanting to move). The decision to fork was forced onto the (now Wowpedia) admins by Wikia being unwilling to let the World of Warcraft wiki go (or hand back the domain name that was originally owned by the wiki). So, as well as being relevant (to different degrees) to Warcraft, World of Warcraft, MMOs, roleplaying games (including Dungeons & Dragons), collectable card games, novels and the other elements of the WoW universe, this wiki is tied in with the history of Wikia and the dissatisfaction that a percentage of its users (I don't know how many) have with the increasing number of adverts being thrown onto pages and the recent change in the Wikia interface. I don't know how big a wiki, Wowpedia is compared to Wikipedia, but WoWWiki is the largest wiki on Wikia, and this exodus is very significant to the history of that project. Wikia depends on advertising and if its major wikis start to abandon it (and turn into abandoned ghost wikis) that has got to reduce the value of its advertising space and could eventually make it hard for them to generate the income needed to pay to host them. There have got to be people talking about WoWWiki/Wowpedia in that context and some of those people should be writing in places seen as reliable secondary sources. I think that there should be two articles (one for WoWWiki and one for Wowpedia) and that both should have a section to explain the dispute with Wikia, the project fork and how the individual projects have progressed since the fork. Big Mac (talk) 10:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Eventually there will be reliable secondary sources; the problem is that none have as yet provided significant coverage of Wowpedia.  What people think should be notable is often different than what factually meets Wikipedia's guideline on notability.  Just being a large site does not automatically result in an article - even the WowWiki article was deleted in 2006 due to failure to meet notability guidelines, and wasn't recreated with reliable sources to establish that notability until 2009. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is though what really counts as "significant coverage"? Does it have to be in some kind of gaming magazine, CNN, BBC or something else? I find it hard to believe that would ever happen as the last ones probably don't care about gaming news (especially not wikis). The only really "secondary sources" that has done some coverage are blogs and the Curse network sites, which apparently doesn't count. --Gourra (talk) 09:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Again, going to raise this discussion. It feels silly that there have to be "significant coverage", however nobody explains what counts as significant coverage. --Gourra (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Follow the links provided above.  It's documented at WP:RS and WP:N. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I agree with Izno ... basically, not yet.  I believe there will likely eventually be significant coverage by reliable secondary sources - but that coverage is not yet available.  Give it more time to develop. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Randomly popping in here; the Wowpedia section reads as an advertisement. I think that we should either have a completely seperate page for Wowpedia and remove that section, or rewrite the section from a neutral point of view. Or just remove the section - it is not relevant to WoWWiki. If I were to start a new Wikipedia, would we include a section about it on the Wikipedia page? Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The situation isn't really comparable. A schism in Wikipedia may or may not be included in the article, although it should be said that it is in the case of the Spanish Wikipedia. In this case, the site covered in the article physically moved and the only reason there are two copies is because the site's former host is squatting on the domain name and keeping a moribund copy open. It's sort of an awkward point right now though since there's not enough for two articles but not mentioning Wowpedia would be inaccurate. Is there something specific you think reads like an advert? I don't see it. Andreona (talk) 06:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The " better user experience with accurate up to date information" sure sounds like an advertisement.  I agree that it's completely non-notable at this point.  24.41.47.147 (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, most of the "references" are biased, considering that they are either written or influenced by the people who wrote the section. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wowpedia notability 

message: I removed the Alexa data, since it is not relevant. Alexa only tracks full domains—all of wikia.com or all of gamepedia.com—and not the relevant sub-domains. SpyFu does track sub-domains, but has limited searching for non-subscribers. Having said that I was able to get the following before being asked to sign up. ―MJBurrage(T•C) 19:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Wowwiki & Wowpedia traffic