Talk:WoWWiki

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)

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)

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)

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)

Deletion notification

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wowpedia. Powers ^T 12:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

Infoboxes

An infobox for Wowpedia has twice been added to this article by MJBurrage (talk · contribs). This needs to be discussed for consensus, as it appears to go against the results of the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wowpedia. The meaningful text content has already been merged; the infobox places too much weight on a forked project site. This article is about the site WoWwiki, not a chameolon community that changes names. If/when Wowpedia does gain notability on its own, then that's the time to re-create its own article with an infobox; but it should not be forced into here in an attempt to bypass the consensus of the AfD that Wowpedia is not yet notable on its own. --- Barek (talk) - 20:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The Warcraft wiki became notable due to its community and the content they created, not its name. Both forks have the same pre-fork content, and Wowpedia has a majority of the community (around two thirds of the admins, and a number of account registrations equal to the number of pre-fork active users). Its too early to know which will become dominant, and if the other will wither, but both projects are descended from the version that attained notability. The arguments in the deletion log boiled down to Wowpedia not being separately notable yet, which is different than not notable at all.

As it stands now, it might appear that Wikipedia—which being affiliated with Wikia, is thus affiliated with the Wikia hosted fork—is picking favorites. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 21:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It might appear that way, but I highly doubt that is the case. I could give a rip about wikia. In fact, the vast majority of time I spend writing about wikia is spent deflecting accusations that somehow volunteer editors for wikipedia are engaged in some kinda nefarious conspiracy to either funnel traffic to wikia or discredit competitors to wikia, as though any of us care about jimbo's crappy for profit venture. Protonk (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The established notability is on the name "WoWwiki". Trying to retroactively claim that notability was actually on the community does not match the existing sources. The text describing the Wowpedia fork is in the article, no one is hiding that, as the fork is a significant event in the history of WoWwiki - but the article is about WoWwiki, not Wowpedia - adding a Wowpedia infobox is not appropriate here. Wowpedia will quite likely eventually have sources of its own that will also establish notability, and at that point have its own article; but the sources have not yet caught up. Yes, both have the same roots - that does not automatically transfer notability established by one onto the other. Claims that Wikipedia is picking a favorite is clearly false, as the listing is based upon the sources - not original research and analysis of what may likely become dominant. --- Barek (talk) - 21:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The titles alone—of the articles that established notability—make it clear that they were always about the community of gamers that created the content, not the brand name.

There was one notable wiki about Warcraft, it split; one party kept the name, but the other got the kids so to speak. Neither can currently realistically claim to be more important than the other.

But the current structure of this article alone, incorrectly implies that one is dominant and the other little more than an archive. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 04:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The text clarifies the history and makes no claim of one being dominant. However, the article subject is WoWwiki, not Wowpedia. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The subject is the wiki about Warcraft, which since gaining notability has forked into two descendants. Neither of those descendants is the original (one has the name, the other has the creators). Part of a proper description of WoWWiki, is thus a description of Wowpedia; and part of that description is identification. As such the Wowpedia logo is germane to the section. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 22:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The subject is, and has always been WoWwiki the site. Claiming otherwise is simply an attempt to re-purpose the article. When Wowpedia the site also develops notability on its own, the infobox and logos for Wowpedia would be appropriate in that article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation, so other than changing the article once a day, what is the next step? —MJBurrage^(T•C) 05:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

See WP:DR. I'll create an RfC below. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Subject of article and use of infoboxes/images

{{rfctag|soc}}

Resolved

Is the subject of the article the website wowwiki.com, or about the community related to wikis for Warcraft? On a related note, is it appropriate to add an infobox to this article for Wowpedia.org and/or a logo image for wowpedia into this article, following the "redirect" close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wowpedia. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Logo Wowwiki.png WoWWiki (pre-fork)thumb|Wowpedia logo|140pxthumb|WoWWiki logo (post-fork)

The existing positions/arguments for the views on this are covered in the thread above this one at Talk:WoWWiki#Infoboxes. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest I don't see why we can't add an image showing the new site's logo. I understand the arguments against doing that, but this is a pretty low impact choice. Adding an image is analogous to adding text. If we have text about the fork, why not an image? Protonk (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think an infobox would be contrary to the AfD on Wowpedia, but an image seems reasonable. However, the image should add relevance to the article, and the caption should make it clear the image describes a competing website to WoWWiki. One thing to note: I believe it should be recognized that both parties in this dispute (Barek and MJBurrage) are trying to act with good faith. I commend them for moving this to RfC instead of an edit war.Ddcorkum (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I still disagree with adding the image; but if consensus supports adding it, then one change I would like to see is that both the WoWwiki image (in the infobox) and the Wowpedia thumb image (in the Wowpedia text section) have the same components. By that I mean: either both images should be only the logo, or both should contain the logo plus the stylized site name. At the time of this post, the WoWwiki image is only the logo, while the existing Wowpedia image is logo plus stylized text. Ideally, both images would also be the same size to prevent one from having the appearance of receiving promotional favor over the other. --- Barek (talk) - 21:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the wowpedia image was just taken from the front page. A better source would be here. Protonk (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe that both logos should be the ones currently used on the respective sites Main Page. I have made that change in the current WoWWiki infobox.

For Wowpedia, the equivalent main page logo is the one I added recently ("W" icon over name) —MJBurrage^(T•C) 01:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

For what its worth the current Wowpedia logo scaled to 128px covers the same area as the post fork WoWWiki logo, but it looks smaller due to having more white space. With this post, I sized the WoWPedia logo to 140px for comparison. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 01:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow that new logo is ugly. Protonk (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't been aware that the WoWWiki logo had changed, but my opinion on it is the same as Protonk's. I agree that, if consensus supports having the image (which appears to be the case), then the logos shown should be the ones shown on each site's main page. The remaining question then would be the image caption for the Wowpedia image. Should it be simply "Wowpedia logo", or something more? I think that's enough, given the text it's inserted next to already provides all the context. --- Barek (talk) - 18:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "Wowpedia logo" is a sufficient caption. I also believe that you meant you agreed with me in that each logo should be the one on the sites Main Page (Protonk linked to the portion of the Wowpedia logo that they call the "stamp", the full logo includes the name). I would further guess that each site is now using logos that spell out their names since an icon alone is too generic to distinguish one fork from the other.

Do you still think the Wowpedia logo should be reduced in size more-so than just making it a thumbnail? (it is currently smaller here on the talk page, at 140px). —MJBurrage^(T•C) 21:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

My initial concern on size was when I thought they were both still using the "stamp" logo - as they were similarly designed, it seemed reasonable they should also be similarly sized. However, as that's no longer the case, I think the standard thumb sizing used in the Mediawiki software is fine. I generally prefer using the default anyway, as it allows each user to set a different prefered standard size in the "my preferences" settings. --- Barek (talk) - 21:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I'll add the logo to the appropriate section after saving this comment. Thanks for the input, and the RFC tag, I had not seen that before. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 03:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

External Links

Not sure where else this is best to put, but recently users who forked to the new Wowpedia began mass changing all our redirects to their site. I've altered the created template to keep it to WoWWiki. This is not to "choose" one side over the other, but simply because WoWWiki is as of now the more notable, long standing, site that has a page here on wikipedia and is still the official fan site. If/When this changes, it would then be fine to update said external link templates. Please, lets not turn wikipedia external links into some forked site war.

Note: If someone feels this goes against consensus, let me know. But reading the comments above, and on the WoWpedia deletion nom, that WoWWiki has the notability. Hooper (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I would have to say that such changes should be judged in context. If an editor is changing multiple links without doing much else, they are probably trying to game the system; since for better or for worse, where a Wikipedia article links to does effect Google results.

However since (in my experience) the articles that have become different between WoWWiki and Wowpedia since the fork, tend to be more useful/accurate/timely on the Wowpedia side. So it is quite possible that an isolated change to the external links is a considered good-faith edit.

In the latter case, I would think that the best response, is an external link to both forks. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 15:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Cited Material

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)

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)

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)

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)

*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)

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)

(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)

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)

Wowpedia notability

Wowpedia just started getting linked from the official community site. Is this notable enough? --Gourra (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Added the {{Split section}} template to the Wowpedia section. Discuss here as to why you think it should or shouldn't be split. --Gourra (talk) 09:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Follow the links provided above. It's documented at WP:RS and WP:N. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Domain name

If someone eventually does a story where they mention Wikia's possession of the domain name, it would be worth including for sure. I can't find anywhere that mentions it other than forums, which I already culled from the references. Similarly, the "Anti-Wikia" business might merit a passing mention, if it can be attested. Andreona (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

All the "Anti-Wikia" business is entirely opinion - I am a Wikia user and I'm fine with the changes, as well as still an active contributor to a few of their wikis. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

"entirely opinion" - how so?

Nobody's saying "Wikia is evil"; merely they did implement changes which did divide many, many communities. How is that opinion? Either it happened or it didn't.

Also, nice to see you again mate, even if I'm nearly a year late. >.> A F K When Needed 15:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 8 April 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page as proposed at this time, per the discussion below. Splitting the page is an editorial decision outside the scope of this close, so discussion on that can continue as necessary. Dekimasuよ! 23:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

---

WoWWiki → Wowpedia – At this point wowwiki is a moribund site with a small userbase basically made up of one administrator, whereas wowpedia sees several hundreds of edits daily with millions of visitor monthly. Wowpedia shouldn't be a footnote in wowwiki's history, it should be the other way around. 2A01:CB19:43C:D700:19FF:6654:6897:F22F (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This is changing the scope of the article. If Wowpedia is independently notable, then a new article should be created at Wowpedia. There's no harm in keeping this article if the wiki was popular and notable at one point. Note that it was recently merged here as lacking notability, so you will have to find more sources if the article is to be recreated._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand how wowwiki is more notable than the thing that replaced it :/ It's like if wikipedia kept the European Union article as a footnote in the European Coal and Steel Community article. They should either be two independent articles, have no articles at all or have wowwiki as a footnote in the wowpedia one, but not this way around. 2A01:CB19:43C:D700:19FF:6654:6897:F22F (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Notability doesn't equal importance to fans, but importance to the general public. Currently it seems that WoWWiki got more mentions in reliable sources, due to its novelty, and Wowpedia didn't get noticed as much by non-fans of the game, as it appeared later and as a spinoff of WoWWiki. Therefore it may be the most popular, but isn't as notable by Wikipedia standards. Keep in mind Wikipedia is about history so even if it's defunct now, as long as it was notable at some point it should have an article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

That was the past, now a days Wowpedia is getting more mentions than ever since the move. (Kotaku & Polygon are examples) Please do your research.

Also, if Wikipedia is about history, why is it stuck in the past?

2600:1700:F7E0:45F0:A46C:F3DC:FD49:AF11 (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Reverting editors who reverted you is a great way to get the article locked down, and it won't help retain the article on the site. The article was there, User:Czar boldly redirected it, the discussion should happen BEFORE it is recreated. I also agree that its current state is pretty lacking in notability, it cherry picks select sentences from sources that hardly discuss it at all. If you can post more sources then please do, otherwise it should not exist and will just be redirected again and protected this time._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I only reverted once and didn't see the other revert until I have already done mine. Also, read the following below: PCJ makes a good argument about a generic article for the two. 2600:1700:F7E0:45F0:A46C:F3DC:FD49:AF11 (talk) 04:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

fwiw, the article was redirected not by me but by this AfD between 2010 and 2018, when it was slightly expanded by "an admin on Wowpedia". I restored the redirect because that expansion consisted solely of mentions in secondary sources, not significant coverage. czar 09:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - if sufficient third-party reliable sources exist to establish its own notability, then it should have its own article at Wowpedia. We don't wipe-out something that was established notable in its own right just because fans have moved elsewhere. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Improper move request. WowWiki is still WoWwiki. It is possible that Wowpedia is independently notable, but WoWWiki did not become Wowpedia. They are distinct topics, with Wowpedia only being covered here due to its relation and apparently lack of independent notability. -- ferret (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Yes WoWWiki is still WoWWiki and is still independently notable, but WoWWiki did become Wowpedia with a move but WoWWiki stayed there because Wikia kept it from shutting down and hiring one person to take over. 2600:1700:F7E0:45F0:A46C:F3DC:FD49:AF11 (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - a separate article should exist at Wowpedia. WoWWiki formerly had notability and the fork that happened added a new site which has since gathered its own notability. --pcj (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps a neutral option would be to move to a generically named page i.e., "Warcraft wiki". Since several of the citations on the page are about the users of the site, if most of the users have moved to a different site, it would seem appropriate to apply the same notability to the new site, or at least let the sites share a page without showing undue favoritism. --pcj (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - WoWWiki has had its time and should remain where it is, but I do agree that Wowpedia has earned its own article or as PCJ suggested a neutral name for the two. Cootatsbra (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't be opposed to an article title like WoWWiki and Wowpedia. That's, I think, the most simple solution._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose this solution. Is there a name we could put this at which would encompass the entire history of the WoW wiki-presence? I feel separate articles for wowwiki vs wowpedia are just not significant enough on their own, especially since both ended up being subsumed under wider-scale operations like Wikia and Gamepedia, and the connected history is something to preserved in a narrative order. WoWWiki and Wowpedia might be good enough. -- Netoholic @ 04:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I am the one who requested the move originally, but now I see that a neutral page called "WoWWiki and Wowpedia" would be a much better option. Can I change the proposal? 212.51.167.132 (talk) 07:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• "WoWWiki and Wowpedia" is not a solution if WoWWiki is the only entity that received significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) If Wowpedia has not also received standalone coverage from reliable, secondary source, then we cover it summary style in the parent article or not at all. I'm not seeing sources that indicate Wowpedia's notability on par with WoWWiki. It's totally reasonable for one prior incarnation of a website to be more noteworthy (per sources) than its successor. For another games analogy, there are plenty of freeware descendants/clones of games released in the 70s/80s, but those successors are not necessarily covered in sources the way the original was/is. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 09:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Please decide on whether to split the article first before actually making a split article as that would override whether what the name of this article is. Right now the Wowpedia article already looks like it is being recreated from a redirect and stubbornly kept. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:BOLD is a thing, and we can work to gather sources and text related to Wowpedia while this RM is on-going. It can always then be merged if that is consensus. -- Netoholic @ 14:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding notability, I have tried to read up all the articles linked by Czar and it seems to me that Wowpedia fits the bill, barely yes but at least as much as Wowwiki or not far :

1) Wowpedia has been the subject of or a part of research such as this thesis Bishop, Sarah (May 2013). A Grandiose Reality: Addiction and Technical Communication in the Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game (PDF) (MA). Texas State University-San Marcos. Retrieved 2018-03-04.

2) or Hunter, Rik (November 2014). "Hypersocial-Interactive Writing: An Audience of Readers-as-Writers". Literacy in Composition Studies. 2 (2): 17–43. doi:10.21623/1.2.2.3. Retrieved 2018-03-04.

3) and The Smashing Book #2. Smashing Media GmbH. March 2011. p. 231. ISBN 9783943075229.

4) secondary sources and third party websites also often link to Wowpedia, example here with Kotaku, PC Gamer and [here with Polygon, all of which explicitly constitute reliable sources as per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Reliable_sources. Also Techspot.

The fact that Wowpedia is also officially recognized as the Warcraft wiki by Blizzard Entertainment (and not Wowwiki), that it serves as the main wiki for the Warcraft community, that its numbers (number of editors, daily/monthly number of edits, of pageviews..) completely, utterly dwarf those of Wowwiki, and that there are multiple researches (I do not agree with the first one being a "small" one - reading the different articles about notability this does not seem to be relevant specially if it's in fact coupled with multiple other "small" ones instead of taking it individually - if you CTRL+F "wowpedia" you will get over 60+ results from that paper alone ; I'm not sure what more one could want, a whole trilogy of novels centered around Wowpedia ? Because this will never exist), and the fact that Kotaku & Polygon which have explicitly been listed as reliable sources also link to Wowpedia (and not Wowwiki) should be enough.

5) Condensing hundreds of links into one : stats for 2018 only, this is how widely used is Wowpedia, this is a list of the many websites linking to Wowpedia which includes both fansites, yes, but also many third party websites. Ironically enough, this seems to include Wikipedia itself. All in all this should be enough (maybe not in a satisfying way but still enough) to warrant Wowpedia its own page. -- 31.37.58.181 (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Generally, oppose the move and support a split (You can see a few sections above I've got basically the same position in 2010). We certainly can and do have articles for defunct or largely defunct pages, so I don't see why we couldn't have a page for WoWWiki and another for WoWPedia. As folks have pointed out above, notability isn't rescinded by a website becoming less popular. It still existed at one point and had third party sources write about it; we can still cover it. Protonk (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wowwiki & Wowpedia traffic

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)

wowwiki.wikia.com

185k Est Monthly SEO Clicks —"Overview - wowwiki.wikia.com". SpyFu. April 3, 2018.

wow.gamepedia.com

3.16ᴍ Est Monthly SEO Clicks —"Overview - wow.gamepedia.com". SpyFu. April 3, 2018.