Article Edit

This page is part of WikiProject Disgruntled Former Wikia Fans.

If you wish to leave feedback or need assistance, please contact Wowpedia, as updates are unlikely to happen here.

To Wikia: If you love something, let it go. It's far easier to explain to the shareholders that way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plymouth (talkcontr).

I think it's more than fine and fair to have wowpedia listed as a fan site, but this particular article is anything but unbiased. Frejya's RingFrejya 05:23, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
A little bit is biased, but hell, it even mentions the fact that wowpedia's up & down like a yoyo. Either way, I edited it. It should be fine now. Resa1983 (talk) 13:33, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
Polished it up a little more. It should be just fine now. Frejya's RingFrejya 14:57, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Does WoWWiki have a neutrality check template? :D Plymouth (talk) 16:19, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

It does, and I included one last night which was subsequently removed. The edits you last made looked just fine to me. Frejya's RingFrejya 16:30, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Wowwiki Edit

At NO point did wowwiki admins request wikia remove wowwiki from their servers - wowwiki admins know CC-BY-SA too well to even ATTEMPT that stupidity. Freyja, you adding that section back is a blatant lie. Wowwiki admins asked for the domain name (which is completely separate), and even offered to purchase it, with Wikia saying no. I resent you posting your lies when you weren't even around for the negotiations. I'm replacing that section again.Resa1983 (talk) 16:21, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

RAAAAAAAGGGEEEEE!!!! Good Lord, calm down. Correct the section then and try to remain impartial while presenting both sides of the issue. It was my understanding that the admins here wanted wikia out of the site completely, which would seem to involve removing the site from their servers (otherwise wikia would still control the content and layout). If Wikia went ahead and gave up the domain name, you can bet they'd want another wow website, but having the 'wiki' still on the name of the old site would fly in the face of the ToU, specifically the Intellectual Property clause. I'm trying to present their side of the issue rather than presenting something that essentially resorts to 'they were evil, 'nuff said'. Frejya's RingFrejya 16:30, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
Don't be absurd. The Terms of Use does not dictate Wikia policy; it limits users, not Wikia. It is Wikia policy to not remove content from their site when a wiki leaves, that has nothing to do with the Wikia Terms of Use. --PcjWoWWiki admin (TDrop me a line!C58,926 contributions and counting) 16:33, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
I did correct the section, and you reverted it again. Admins wanted to LEAVE wikia, yes. However they know better than to request wikia remove content from their servers due to CC-BY-SA, which is why they grabbed a copy of everything and left. Leaving wikia DOESN'T mean they wanted wikia to remove content from their servers. The admins aren't stupid enough to request that. If Wikia gave up the domain name, they could go back to what they WANTED wowwiki to use last year - They had no problem with last year, why the problem with it now?
Yes, I'm biased. I side with the admins. However I'm actually attempting to keep the article un-biased so it doesn't get deleted, while you're not even attempting to by keeping on putting in that drivel about the admins requesting Wikia to remove Wowwiki from their servers. No one really knew that the domain name was signed over to wikia when the previous owners came over, until it was revealed to them by Wikia (they didn't originally own it). Admins asked to have it signed over, or to even buy it from Wikia, however they said no. Thats the facts, not biased opinion, and it gives a reason as to why we moved to (because we couldn't keep the original domain name). Resa1983 (talk) 16:41, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
@ Pcj: And the users wanted to take the wowwiki domain name with them, right? So it would seem the Terms of Use did apply, which includes the usage of the wikia name in part or in whole. Using WoWWiki outside the wikia network would fall into their 'confusion' statement. Be that as it may, my intent is to present this article in as neutral a stance as possible, Wikia reasons (interpreted correctly or not) aside.
On another note, though, can we use something besides 'fork' in the article? Doesn't seem to jive. 'Branched' is a good alternative, at least in the first instance. Frejya's RingFrejya 16:43, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
WoWWiki is not the Wikia name, they simply own the domain. Fork is semantically correct. --PcjWoWWiki admin (TDrop me a line!C58,926 contributions and counting) 16:45, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
Something makes me think that anything I say at this point or suggest, even if it's just a change in punctuation, will be met with 'no'. Good luck with the new site. Frejya's RingFrejya 16:52, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
Fork is semantically correct. Branch means something different. Fork means copying & going separate ways, branch means copying and running together in tandem. In this case Fork is correct. The only problem we had was you putting false information up about wowpedia/wowpedia admins attempting to make them look bad for wanting to leave. Resa1983 (talk) 17:01, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
I was unaware both 'fork' and 'branch' were used in software language. Thank you for taking the time to point that out. As for supplying false information 'to make people look bad for wanting to leave', nothing could be further from the truth, which I've said repeatedly. I am not beholden to either site, and my only intention was to make the article as unbiased as possible. Is it true admins wanted to leave? Yes. Wikia had reasons which were absent in this article regarding the domain, reason which I apparently (but quite innocently) misinterpreted. Alas, such is the nature of public sites like this. All I wanted was to post both sides' reasons for action. Seeing as how that has been accomplished, it looks like the article is neutral as it stands now and I have no problems with it. Frejya's RingFrejya 17:09, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
Good to hear. :) --PcjWoWWiki admin (TDrop me a line!C58,926 contributions and counting) 17:11, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

To be fair btw Pcj isn't exactly a dispassionate party when it comes to editing the locked article. I'm just saying. Plymouth (talk) 16:46, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

I doubt anyone editing this article can be a dispassionate party. --PcjWoWWiki admin (TDrop me a line!C58,926 contributions and counting) 16:47, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
Very true. Plymouth (talk) 16:48, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Traffic Edit

In the future, it would be useful to see how much the move affects traffic to the new site versus the old over time. Some sort of unbiased metric would have to be used though, because I've never trusted Alexa and certainly not now since the kind of people it includes are the same ones who have no idea the move occurred. Right now it's too premature to talk about such things, obviously. Plymouth (talk) 16:38, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Giveaways? Edit

It now says Wikia have begun "giveaways in order to generate enthusiasm for its site" - what's it talking about? It will be useful to put details of what kind of incentives both sides add. Plymouth (talk) 17:06, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

See Forum:Future of WoWWiki. --PcjWoWWiki admin (TDrop me a line!C58,926 contributions and counting) 17:08, October 27, 2010 (UTC)


It should be on here. Plymouth (talk) 04:10, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Alexa rank Edit

If the page is going to remain locked from editing, then the Alexa rank needs to be updated regularly by someone with permission to do so.

As it stands now the posted rank is wrong by a factor of 3.5 —MJBurrage(TC) 05:43, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the ranking effective today, but I can't promise to remember to update it regularly. --Kris talk 11:29, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

Article Lock Edit

DeadlyKris, is there any way this article can be reduced to a semi-protected status? I understand your reasoning for locking it when trouble was happening, but I don't think the lock needs to be permanent. Hopefully people can be responsible and not abuse/vandalise this article in the future. ddcorkum (talk) 16:38, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem there's anyone around to vandalize it anymore. The reason I came here was because of the outdated Alexa rank. I suggest removing this altogether if the article is going to be locked. --Alaine S (talk) 21:28, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

advantages of wowwiki Edit

Since the article describes a community that split off of wowwiki, I think it's worth mentioning more about the portion that remained behind. Personally I prefer wowpedia and am unlikely to come back to wowwiki, but surely there must be some reason why some folks stayed with the old site other than not wanting to update bookmarks (which is actually the reason I'm here today lol). Seriously though, it would seem relevant to the page. Dr. Cheis (talk) 11:17, January 19, 2011 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.