Template talk:ABCWikis

Once Upon a Time
I nominate that instead of having http://onceuponatime.wikia.com/wiki/Once_Upon_a_Time_Wiki as the Once Upon a Time wiki, it be changed to http://onceuponatimeabc.wikia.com/wiki/Once_Upon_a_Time_Wiki Because the latter wiki has much more in depth information, has better pictures, is more uninformed and is visually prettier. -- Lynettefan2626

I agree with this!!! - Princess Die (talk)

I much agree, the second ouat wiki is more detailed and better structured, most important things for a wiki. Villain fan (talk) 22:19, December 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree with this. I realize that the other wiki came first and is more popular and "filled" at the moment, but ours is more professional and we're striving to do a bang-up job with it, but it's hard when we remain in relative obscurity. The other wiki is more of a fandom website. Ours works more like an actual encyclopedia, which is the basis of wikia. - Renaboss (talk) 22:20, December 5, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this 100%   Hipster Queen  Talk to Alison   22:27, December 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with this, the suggested wiki is alot more efficient, attractive and professional Jdg98 (talk) 22:24, December 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * This sounds like a good idea. The second once upon a time wiki has better article structures, more photos, and just more info due to their detailed recaps. :)-sonyasivy.png, sonyasivy2.png !!! 00:06, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but the answer is no. The original wiki has a larger and more active community, and more articles and articles that are more comprehensive than the new wiki's. And, most importantly, it isn't managed by a group that often causes issues in chat, and seems to be at the center of a lot of the current disagreements and drama on several wikis. -- sannse (help forum | blog) 00:20, December 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, for the time being. Our wiki is still being developed, which is why we would have appreciated the help from new users, and therefore the extra advertisement. Eventually, we will have covered every bit of information about Once Upon a Time, in a much more professional manner, without having to resort to dedicating three pages to every single character the way the other wiki does, to bulk up. When we do have everything taken care of, we expect to be given recognition and assistance when it comes to getting our name out there. We do work hard on our wiki, if it's not more active it's because the other one came first and got all the spotlights from you guys. We deserve a little something too. But we'll work hard to earn it even more. Don't fail us then. - Renaboss (talk) 01:01, December 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd like to argue that it is not the people in charge who are causing the drama on other wikis, but merely those who happen to use out wiki. Besides, it's all in the past. Jdg98 (talk) 01:07, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

Well Sannse, I'm sorry that all of those wikis are so jealous of us, but we can't help it that we're so popular ;D   Hipster Queen  Talk to Alison   00:58, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that answer is ridiculous. x They have more pages because they split characters into 4 different pages. For example, on ours, we have a page for Snow White. There, they have Snow White, Mary Margaret, Snow White Gallery, Mary Margaret Gallery. Those four things are included on that one page on our wiki. Also, the whole point is for our wiki to get more popular!! How can we do that if you don't give us a chance. Also we dont' cause drama. One user that edits there does. Jdg98 is an admin thee, he doesnt go around causing drama. Renaboss doesn't either. I did a long time ago, but that's in the past :) Kthnx. -- Lynettefan2626

You could at least have the decency to reply...   Hipster Queen  Talk to Alison   01:07, December 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * Can't we just have both wikis and then people can go to their preffered wiki.Gusey1397 (talk) 07:34, December 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * There are more then just the two of our wiki's. There are I think 5 overall Once Upon a Time wiki's. I really don't see why you are attacking our wiki for doing things differently then yours. It doesn't really matter which one is in the footer, we each have our own separate communites and thats that. The people that also support your choice are people that edit your wiki so the vote is sort of weighted in your favour anyways. Jake 17:17, December 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * I really was not going to put up a reply since Sansse has made it clear twice already that discussion on changing the template is over, so my response is more to show some communication towards the other once upon a time wikia. I truly disagree, renaboss and lynettefan, on your opinions that our wikia has to "resort to dedicating three pages to every single character" and that we have "more pages because they split characters into 4 different pages". I don't know whether it was an intention to make it sound like our wikia format is all wrong, or that we waste space with more pages, but neither of those are the truth. And honestly, I don't think you have the right to judge the format of our wikia when yours as well is different in format from ours. What works for you on your wikia is yours, and to each their own. Same with whoever visits whatever Once Upon a Time wikia. Some people will prefer yours over ours or vice versa. Big deal.


 * When Once Upon a Time was still in its first season, the wikia had separate character pages for each character, and the pages were split for each person's Fairytale Land and Storybrooke counterpart. We had those pages there in the sense to show the identities of the characters of who they were in the past and present. After season one, yes, there was talk on our wikia amongst the contributors on a blog of the decision whether or not to combine pages for both Fairytale Land and Storybrooke counterparts. There was a consensus of not combining the pages, so we left it like that. If there is a further consensus on our wikia in the future wanting to merge the pages, then yes, the change would be made. Each page is dedicated to each character's individual history, trivia, appearances and photos. We write the characters' histories in chronological order. So even if, let's say, we are shown a flashback of Snow White in season two, the actual flashback event would still be listed on Snow White's page. And yes, we do have separate galleries for each counterpart. Applegirl (talk) 22:27, December 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * Blondetta, I replied on chat last night.  Please move on from this now, I'm sorry, but we're not going to change the template at this time. -- sannse (help forum | blog) 18:27, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

Once Upon a Time in Wonderland
Hey :D I nominate the Once Wonderland Wiki to be included in this template. There's no wiki for this show in the template yet, and we're working on it, and we have all the needed pages for the moment, since the show hasn't aired yet, and some scenes have been filmed for the pilot. Thanks for the consideration :P Killian Jones 03:05, May 5, 2013 (UTC)


 * Not familiar with this series. It does seem closely related to Once Upon a Time, but also it seems harmless to add so let's do that. Wikipedia says the name of the series is not final- if any major changes go through, remember to change how it's called on this template. Elecbullet (talk) 23:17, April 19, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would agree that the series is not finalized in terms of airing and episodes. This wiki is still in its early stages, too, and only has a few pages. Recently, it's been merged with two other very newly created wiki sites also based on the same show. Hopefully the show is picked up and aired. Applegirl (talk) 23:53, April 19, 2013 (UTC)

Template to Wide?
I wondering why the template for ABCWikis is wider. I visited some wikis that have it and it going through some material on page like on quotes, blogs, etc. Can you shrink the wideness or redesign it. Wanderer23 (talk) 16:04, April 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that someone should take that background-image out and replace it with an actual box with 100% width, so that it'd fit wikis that have it in the left/right/main column the same :D Killian Jones 03:01, May 5, 2013 (UTC)


 * I replaced an image with a version that was the same width as the blue image. 05:04, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

Template's Color
Hmmm, I think that this template should be restored to a normal box; I mean, that the background image should be taken out in my opinion. There are lots of wikis using this template, and they all have their specific style (background color, links color, etc), and this template's image might not allways fit each wiki's background. So, I think the template should be like this. Killian Jones 01:29, June 30, 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree.-- 01:34, June 30, 2013 (UTC)


 * I personally like the background. (Which, btw, Killian, you removed for some reason some time ago, that I just restored). 01:37, June 30, 2013 (UTC)
 * As restored is good; it has some character.-- 01:39, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

Background Image
I whould just like to get a idea of who likes the old background with the orange better than the new one with the newer logo? please leave your thourghts  webj444 07:21, July 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * In My oppion we shouldent have a background image just a box with a border and a ABC Wikis Logo  webj444 07:25, July 2, 2013 (UTC)
 * I like the two-color background.-- 12:50, July 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Webj444. Killian Jones 18:09, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

I have been testing with a new template on my sandbox please let me know what you think and what needs to be changed. webj444 03:27, July 5, 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with this. The only change I think it needs is to add a link to the logo (beeing either  or just , without link at all). <font color="#00A7D6">Killian Jones  17:44, July 9, 2013 (UTC)

It's fine as-is. No need to fix what isn't broken, or make it unnecessarily plain. 17:53, July 9, 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. Besides, Utter solitude already fixed the supposed "too wide" problem (which could have been resolved if the wikis having the "issue" would use a clear, but I digress). Please leave it alone, it looks great already.JesseJane (talk) 17:55, July 9, 2013 (UTC)


 * Jesse's right. The template was designed to be a footer, which is why it was the full width it was. It's meant to be displayed below both main page columns, not as part of the center column, which i think is what causes the "too wide" complaint. But ah well, give the people what they want, I guess. XD However, it is my opinion that it should be the full width it was. 05:10, July 10, 2013 (UTC)