Forum:Wikia and Wikipedia problems with gaming

Wikipedia Signpost/2011-03-07/Deletion controversy. "Deletion of article about website angers gaming community." By Gamaliel, 7 March 2011.

The comments, especially from outsiders, are enlightening. --Timeshifter 15:31, March 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * Old news, though. Wikipedia has long been known to have a bias against game or game related articles unless a particular admin champions or protects it. I pointed out fruitlessly many times on Wikipedia that the decisions about deleting game or fan-oriented articles are totally arbitrary and disregard precedent or equal treatment. World of Warcraft and the Warcraft universe has an amazing dearth of Wikipedia content despite its massive size and longevity. However, if you like Batman or Star Wars almost anything seems to be fair game.
 * Wikipedia is slowly getting better in this area, but largely toward a deletionist bent. Still, many franchises are inscrutable sacred cows. -- Fandyllic (talk &middot; contr) 10 Mar 2011 7:20 PM Pacific
 * Wiki farms seem best suited for the gaming universe. They're much easier to manage that way.


 * Without integrated watchlists I don't think wiki farms as a whole will come close to the popularity of Wikipedia. If there were integrated watchlists I think there would be many more successful large wiki farms besides Wikia.


 * I want lots of gaming info on both Wikipedia and wiki farms. Games are certainly notable. Just like movies, music, and many other aspects of popular culture.


 * The lack of respect for World of Warcraft seems to extend to Wikia. I don't play that particular game, but I know it is very popular. So I was surprised at first by how badly WoWwiki admins and editors were treated by Wikia during the Oasis changeover. --Timeshifter 05:51, March 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't your parents tell you that games are a waste of time? Not really, but people are over-dramatic on this issue. I'd assume it's also the panels that watch over each project in Wikipedia that dictate what should and shouldn't be kept. Sadly, very few things are notable to Wikipedia and unlike Wikia, they don't generally accept first hand data. 06:50, March 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia loves sources, and it's difficult to cite a game. You can't add a link to the boss on level 3. And truthfully, everyone was treated poorly during the Oasis changeover, but I'd argue that WoWWiki got the best deal. They've got their own larger fixed width, just for them.


 * But that larger fixed width was not done well, and it was only given grudgingly after the wiki had started moving/forking to the new site. Also, it does not work on my monitor.


 * This combination of flexible and fixed width is much better: Forum: Need flexible width up to a wider fixed width. I think there would be less wikis thinking of moving/forking if that width was used. --Timeshifter 21:30, March 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * Tell it to Wikia. They still believe that fixed width is better than flexible width, and they're not likely to change their minds on that for a while.


 * I don't have direct evidence to disagree, but I think Wikia is learning some hard lessons from their past inflexibility. Unfortunately, as long as the big wikis remain popular in spite of their changes, they won't change. However, they seem to try to be making more efforts to win over admins. We'll see if they make the right moves. -- Fandyllic (talk &middot; contr) 11 Mar 2011 6:05 PM Pacific


 * Can't say we haven't told them what we want. And they have made some progress - we're being informed of more changes. But still, they're leaving out some important things. There's still room for improvement.


 * I think the fixed-width range of 1000px to 1200px solves so many problems. The width flexibility is only in a narrow range. So it is still a fixed width. It can't get any wider. Maybe they can try it out at WoWWiki. :) --Timeshifter 22:07, March 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * My only response is: How did this get so off-topic? -- Fandyllic (talk &middot; contr) 12 Mar 2011 8:51 PM Pacific


 * Part of topic was about Wikia's problems with gaming. WoWwiki is a gaming wiki. --Timeshifter 12:58, March 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a huge problem with this fixed-width wikia policy. The item tables on my wiki, monster tables, etc are all squished up and the format does not aesthethically pleasing. I liked it back then when there were widgets that you could mess around and put it in various places. I don't mind ad banners at the top/bottom of the pages but the width for adding content and editing within is too limited. vegeance 02:35, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

(unindent). What wiki are you talking about? Check this out: Forum: Need flexible width up to a wider fixed width. I find that the slightly wider fixed width makes a big difference. Try it out in your personal CSS on your wiki, and let me know what you think. --Timeshifter 03:37, March 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * This one for example. The icons won't fit with the table properly and the formatting is ugly with the constraints. vegeance 04:30, March 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * Part of your problem there is you're using thumbnails with attribution. If you take away the  and specify a width instead, you'll save a decent amount of space. You're also not using all of the width you can - you can make the table 160px wider without getting into any problems with the sidebar. You can also disable the expansion buttons if you want.