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.

-- Fandyllic (talk &middot; contr) 15 Mar 2011 1:54 PM Pacific
 * Warning a topic hijack starts at this point.
 * 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)
 * And talking about wiki display width has nothing specifically to do with WoWWiki or gaming wikis. Try again. -- Fandyllic (talk &middot; contr) 15 Mar 2011 1:53 PM Pacific
 * 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.


 * I removed some the width constraints from the tables on that page. I did a find-and-replace to remove variations of style="width: 500px;"


 * There are many other width constraints that can be removed manually. All the individual column and cell width constraints can be removed. Some of those are causing the need for the expansion buttons.


 * Go to the forum and try out the semi-flexible width CSS now that I removed some of the width constraints. I think you will see a great improvement in the tables that now have no width limitations. Your personal CSS for your wiki is at:
 * http://fantasyuniversity.wikia.com/wiki/User:Vegeance/wikia.css --Timeshifter 18:22, March 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * It's definately an improvement but theres still some white space extending to the right of the page. vegeance 18:27, March 15, 2011 (UTC)[[File:Fantasywiki_column.png]]
 * For example http://es.pokemon.wikia.com/wiki/Anime?useskin=monobook makes use of all table space somehow with modifications in .css/.js wiki-wide. It just doesn't seem well that an entire table-sized space is squished together lke that. vegeance 18:44, March 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * A few things: Wikidex (Spanish Pokemon wiki) is easily one of the most well-adapted wikis. They've solved pretty much every problem you can think of, and probably some you can't. Second, they're using Monobook, you're using Oasis. Third, you still have thumbnails in your table. They're using up space unnecessarily. And finally, you're still bound to the expansion buttons, which means even if you do get your table to use the whole width, Wikia will truncate it so it fits in the content area anyway. You need to disable the expansion buttons, remove the  from all of your images, and set the width on the tables to 1000px. You can disable the expansion buttons by adding this to your CSS:

 /* show large tables normally - 2/1/11 */ .WikiaWideTablesWrapper canvas {display:none;} .WikiaWideTablesWrapper img.sprite.popout {display:none;} .WikiaWideTablesWrapper > .table {overflow:visible;}
 * I didn't add the thumbnails, however the removal of the thumbnails in addition with the .css modifications and the 1000px tables work out pretty nicely except that the table seems to be colliding with the navigation bar to the right. Nevertheless, thanks again. vegeance 19:53, March 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea, it'll conflict with the rail, but all you have to do to fix that is put more text at the top of the article to bump it down underneath the rail.
 * Nevermind, I had the content thing collapsed. It looks much better off now. Thanks again. vegeance 20:21, March 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I had the content thing collapsed. It looks much better off now. Thanks again. vegeance 20:21, March 15, 2011 (UTC)