Forum:Should WoWWiki leave Wikia?

__NOINDEX__

On IRC we've been bouncing around the idea (for awhile) of leaving Wikia, checking out options, etc... Wikia plans to move us to a new skin in October (phasing out the old Monaco skin) and has already enacted rules limiting customization. Sadly, this leaves little control in the hands of WoWWiki users and admins to make the wiki look like WoWWiki always has and to maintain it in a way that reflect's WoWWiki's own interests. WoWWiki (and myself personally) have nothing against progress or change, but sadly the "new" look is not conducive to the wiki experience (you can see examples if you would like on other Wikia wikis) - the focus is on getting traffic to other Wikia wikis.

In any case, I feel strongly that we need to investigate our options and see if there is another choice. One problem is getting Wikia to let go of the WoWWiki domain name - they own it and may be reluctant to let it go. Most importantly, I want to make sure we have consensus on this; if we "move" the wiki to another host Wikia policy is to continue it on their own servers, so if we move without getting consensus there will be a split involved in the userbase.

Anyway, I would like comments on this. -- 00:10, September 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * An announcement about the move (and some FAQs) has been posted at Forum:Migration plans update. -- k_d3 22:12, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

The timeline for the upcoming Wikia changes as they pertain to WoWWiki

 * October 6, 2010
 * All logged in users will be able to "switch on" the new look for themselves. - this is now done, the new look is now available.
 * October 20, 2010
 * All users will see the new look.
 * Logged in users will have the temporary option of viewing and editing wikis in Monaco.
 * November 3, 2010
 * The option to use Monaco will be removed.

Comparison of skins
By the way, I spent some time today customizing the new WoWWiki skin (it's a work in progress), and this is how the main page looks:

...isn't something we can fix. There's so much wasted vertical space we're not allowed (thanks to the ToU) to fix that the box ad doesn't even fit above the fold! -- k_d3 18:46, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I hadn't heard about this until Pcj told me. I honestly don't know what to say. I definitely do not like the new skin. I prefer Monaco, and the WoWWiki skin is pretty much great as well. This is new to me, like I said, so I'll have to read more, but... WoW Fan Story Writer (talk) 01:42, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Important changes with the new skin
Here is a list of issues with the new skin affecting WoWWiki and article appearance on WoWWiki. Note that these changes can't be fixed just by cosmetic "tweaks" as Kirkburn and the others at Wikia seem to think. -- 22:16, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * People have been reporting headaches attributed to the new skin. If you are experiencing these headaches, switch to the old WoWWiki skin or just take a break.
 * The WoWWiki "brand" is reduced in importance. Wikia branding occupies the entire top of the page - navigation leads away from WoWWiki to other wikis.  Also, an ad occupies the space below the Wikia header, pushing the WoWWiki navigation lower.
 * The loss of the sitenotice prevents WoWWiki from communicating important messages effectively to its community.
 * Navigation links are greatly reduced. This makes it hard to get around.  A floating toolbar designed to provide some of the missing navigation links barely achieves its purpose and is again difficult to use.  Links to "Random Page" and "Wiki Activity" are strangely given precedence over "Recent Changes" and "Wanted pages".
 * Talk page links are reduced to a small button. Common page maintenance tasks, such as protection, are reduced to a drop-down menu.  "Full" history is hidden behind another drop-down menu listing the most recent editors to the page.
 * Seemingly random categories are added to a "read more" link which is not controllable.
 * In certain viewing modes (such as editing), important features (such as the search bar) do not appear.
 * JavaScript is used in abundance. JavaScript-less users/browsers beware.
 * The skin uses HTML5 which is not supported by certain browsers.
 * Fixed width to 1024px doesn't use the abundance of resolution available in most gamers' screens. This causes most articles with tables or infoboxes to be scrunched to be almost unreadable.  A rather large, pointless sidebar (with ads) further complicates this - the content area is reduced to about 600px wide.  Text does not wrap around the sidebar, nor do horizontal scrollbars appear (specifically disabled by Wikia) for those times when tables manage to make it off-screen.
 * More corporate branding at the bottom of the page again takes users away from WoWWiki.
 * Image attribution gives credit to users who may not deserve it.
 * Display of semantic data in-page is not implemented, despite WoWWiki admins requesting this.
 * Changes to the Wikia Terms of Use prevent admins from making site-wide changes which would benefit WoWWiki's interests but not Wikia's.
 * Wikia only has its corporate strategy, earnings and investors in mind when it comes to how they run the site.
 * WoWWiki can't grow organically. It will basically be tied to the way Wikia runs everything. Meaning that getting ideas, and new features through the door will be much harder.
 * Focus on the community takes a back seat due to Wikia's main goal of a profit margin.


 * This could be clarified a bit. An explanation of the new toolbar would be helpful (I'm worried about it), and I have no idea what "semantic data" is. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 13:29, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * You can see the new toolbar and the other features on the new skin now by switching to it in your preferences. Semantic data is stuff like item/NPC stats (raw data separate from formatting) and does not show up on the new skin. -- 14:11, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

I must say,I'm using the new sking now and I can get used to that,its not as bad as I thought.Sl2059 (talk) 20:39, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

Things that would change if we left Wikia
I'm going to compose a list of stuff that would change if we move off - no matter where we go. Feel free to add if you think of anything. -- 00:52, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure what section to put this in, go ahead and move it if you've got a decent idea: in moving, we would essentially enter a situation in which there are two WoWWikis: the new one, and the old one on Wikia. The consequences of this are... Interesting, to say the least. It would likely cause some confusion for awhile, and have a serious effect on both the current userbase and the previous one. As has been brought up previously, see http://tfwiki.net vs. http://transformers.wikia.com for an example of this. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 03:27, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Part of the potential move to new hosting is that there would be all kinds of news posts/press releases getting sent out to the other fansites/news sites/et al about our "earth-shattering change wrought by the Cataclysm!" Links to the new site in the elinks templates... and so on. The user split has been my biggest fear behind all of this, but if we get the news out widely hopefully people will update their bookmarks. -- k_d3 03:37, September 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the main problem would be with NEW contributors. They won't see the press releases, and when they find the wiki on Wikia, they won't know it's an old version no longer updated.--Sega381 (talk) 12:44, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * There will be some time between the move and when the new skin will roll out which would allow us to put in a sitenotice, however I have a feeling that it would be removed shortly after. -- 13:43, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

What we would leave behind

 * Monaco would be gone - either way it will be gone in a month or so, but if we leave there's no way we're maintaining it. WoWWiki would switch back to the old WoWWiki skin or a re-color of Monobook or Vector (Vector and other skins as an option of course).  We would not adopt Wikia's new look - obviously.
 * Problem reports are gone; again, either way, because Wikia is planning to phase these out too. But obviously we can still get things fixed, just the notification system will change.
 * Ads would be different - depending on where we set up shop we should be able to get something reasonable worked out. Most of our options currently look very reasonable.
 * Avatars, Facebook Connect, MyHome and the like, all of the Wikia social features would be gone.
 * The automated welcome bot would be gone (though if it mattered we could probably code something like it) - we might actually have to come together as a community and welcome newcomers *shock*
 * "Following" would probably revert to "watching". Any remaining instance of "photos" would revert to "images" or "files".
 * The Rich Text Editor would be gone. CategorySelect (easy-add/remove categories) would be gone too.
 * Our domain name - sadly probably the thing we're all most attached to. As we mentioned above we would have to change the domain name.  Currently we have no plans to move to a subdomain of another domain (like WoWInsider just did), but we still have to come up with something that we like and can agree on.
 * The domain itself and all its current content would stay with Wikia for use as they see fit. A copy of all content would go to the new site.
 * We'll probably lose some users - inevitable in a transition. Since we don't have the raw user database users would be required to re-register on the new site. All of the site history and images will carry over, however.
 * Unified login with other Wikia sites will not work.
 * Shared help - help pages from the Wikia Help wiki - would not be available, but we could re-create the important ones from MediaWiki help pages, and we still have a lot of the help pages from before we merged with Wikia. Also, Wikia just nuked most of their Help pages so this probably doesn't matter as much.

What we would gain

 * Things should work better - Wikia has been having some issues lately, and while obviously we can't promise 100% uptime (and the quality of service depends on where we go), removing a lot of the Wikia bloat can't hurt - WoWWiki would use only what it needs (we can trim almost 5 seconds off load time just by not having legacy Wikia code which they keep around to support other wikis and tools we don't use)
 * More direct control of the backend means better optimization of WoWWiki-specific code.
 * Site speed may increase if the wiki is centrally hosted instead of distributed across multiple cache servers - reducing DNS lookups reduces load times.
 * More stability resulting from the lack of daily changes to the codebase.
 * Account renames would be easier - those who had to get their name changed to WoWWiki-User could get it changed back if they wanted.

What would stay the same

 * All of the content existing at the time of the split would be carried over. This includes edit history and images.
 * Relevant extensions will be kept.
 * Any relevant JS or CSS code.
 * Our relationship with Blizzard and other sites will probably stay the same. Depending on where we go it may even improve (for example if we enter an existing network of gaming sites).
 * Policies, guidelines, and user rights will largely stay the same.

Already enabled here
See Special:Version for links to these extensions' manuals.

Enabled also on Wikimedia
 * CategoryTree - Dynamically navigate the category structure
 * CheckUser - Grants users with the appropriate permission the ability to check user's IP addresses and other information
 * Cite - Adds  and  will tell you when a domain name expires. According to whois, the domain expires on November 15, 2019 and is indeed owned by Wikia.  Wikia must register the domain to itself during the sign up process. I think that's bull crap. Dreamhost doesn't do that and offers unlimited bandwidth and disk space. I use them and have not had any problems, but my sites don't get nearly as much traffic as this place. — EGingell  (T|C|F) Treader of Cenarion Circle 07:36, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Plain & simple: I hate the new skin. The list of upcoming 'fixes' to be posted are a joke. I'm for moving away from wikia if at all possible. Wikia's made it quite clear they don't give a damn what their experienced editors think - all they care about is addng more ad space for the all-important dollar. Resa1983 (talk) 05:39, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

If they make more room for content before the final version, then I say stay. If they keep adding ads, or keep it the same as the current one for the new skin, then I say leave.-WoWDeathknight (talk) 21:45, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's pretty easy. The final version rolls out this Wednesday (as an option, mandatory is next month) and they have shown no sign of giving. -- 21:47, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I guess I say we go.-WoWDeathknight (talk) 22:48, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

The one really horrible thing as things stand now, in my opinion, is the video ads that play audio without your permission -- we're naturally all playing WoW with WoWWiki open in the background, so having the web browser make unauthorized noise is kind of a dealbreaker, ESPECIALLY if WoWWiki is open in multiple tabs, and thus is playing multiple unauthorized noisy videos. Whatever decision is made should be to give us maximum control over saying "No" to these abusive ads. Mizzes (talk) 07:31, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I hate those, and no matter how many times we complain to Wikia they keep coming back. -- 12:17, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Please keep letting us know of these, they are not something we allow, but they do sneak through sometimes. The way this works is that we set certain limitations (no auto-audio, no gold-sellers...) and our ad providers send ads with tags that don't conflict with those limitations.  The problem comes if the ads are miss-tagged and get sent to us anyway.  Auto-playing audio are at the top of our own annoying ads list too -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 18:46, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

I'm a newer member to the Wikia zones, as honestly, their format has been difficult for me to use for a long time now. WoWWiki is really the only reason I joined. I will say that, as WoWWiki is my favourite and the only one I use regularly, I hope they DO move! When I'm looking something up, I'm not interested in ads or other sites, I want to find my information, perhaps read other articles relating to my question, and get back to WoW. Any extra content or, as someone else said, "abusive ads" shouldn't be the main thing I see on a Wiki page, especially when I have a specific inquiry in mind.Myrric (talk) 13:11, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly, WoWWiki needs to focus on its content, not crappy navigation or ads, or whatever else Wikia wants to put on us. -- 22:44, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Since my opinion was asked, I shall give it :P I'm personally still on the fence about this. I've always been one to 'wait and see' before making a final decision - and seeing as how I'll be able to do just that this week, I'll have a more definitive answer further down the line. If I were completely honest, though: I'm not beholden to any particular warcraft site in general, seeing as how my main function exists on the official game forums. If you guys do decide to move, I'll likely help at the new site while continuing to edit this (and other) ones. Frejya 22:12, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, no rush. Thanks for your input. -- 22:44, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ugh. I don't know how to say it other than that.  I don't mind the very first page of the wiki, but it looks as if everything else has been squished horrendously to the left.  I might not have such a problem if everything to the right was removed, because as it stands now every page just looks like a thin, narrow column of info.  Which makes it look terrible, imo. And now I hate my user page, too :( Frejya's Ring.gifFrejya  16:37, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with moving. It looks at this point that Wika has no interest in working with us for a more useful skin and so breaking free is probably the best bet. In terms of hosting I offered a suggestion in that section. For problem reports I'd suggest something like bugzilla, for forums I'm sure we could connect phpbb to the wiki's user database. Otherwise, I'm not seeing a big issue, except there become two copies of wowwiki. In terms of search engines, as long as all our inbound links switch over and we don't try to force the changeover with bad SEO the search engines should detect and adjust to the move in a fairly decent manner. -=- Drazisil [t/c] 22:21, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope search engines look on the move favorably. Sounds like we'll see. I think Bugzilla might be a good idea, we'll have to explore that option when we get settled at the new location. -- 22:44, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

I'm perfectly fine with us leaving the wikia system, the video ads that play audio without your permission are really annoying. Furthermore I come on this site for information regards the Warcraft universe and not to get countless ads. However if the admins decide that we stay with it, then I'll trust their judgement on it. --Sairez (talk) 00:37, October 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Myrric made me think of something that makes me want WoWWiki to leave Wikia. Those ads that are in the middle of the page drive me absolutely insane. It makes lines only have 3 words in it and make it annoying to read.-WoWDeathknight (talk) 01:59, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

I don't particularly like the new skin, it's even breaking the pages. To fix them would users need to edit every page to match the new skin? If so given the amount of pages on this wiki that would be no small task. Also the amount of ads they are throwing on the pages seems a bit ridiculous. Wikia doesn't seem to care much about their users opinions and forcing this on users seems a bit stupid, why not give us the choice to keep the old one? I guess on Wednesday we'll get a better idea of how it will change things. I love how large the WoWWiki community is and my only concern with moving sites is how big of a split it would cause. In any case regardless if you chose to stay or move I'll support the decision. Kiingy (talk) 02:28, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty much every page would end up needing changed in the end, mostly affected are pages with wide tables or images and lots of infoboxes and stuff. Thanks for your input. -- 03:22, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

What does it mean 'WoWWiki' for you? Only the English version or all the Warcraft wikis hosted in Wikia and connected via interwiki links at the end of the articles? --Killogwil (talk) 03:14, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * This decision is immediately only for the English WoWWiki, we are open to working something out for the other languages as well if they want to join us. Depending on where we set up we could do something like es.wowwiki.net (or whatever), ru.wowwiki.net, and so on.  But that's up to the individual wikis certainly.  We would be open to keeping the interwiki links on our side pointing to the correct places wherever the other localizations go (Wikia is bad about not wanting to link to off-site wikis, so linking to us might be a bit more difficult if you remain on Wikia). -- 03:18, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to have the possibilty to join all the wikis really in one hosting service, sharing skins, templates, files.... Actually Wikia have a problem about that, there are lots of duplicate pics hosted, different formats (French one is based on a white skin, Polish is black, others are blue...), 25 admins, one per language (it's a mess try to coordinate a desition), different versions of common.css and common.js... One super-wiki is part of my deepest wet dreams. I don't really care about the interface or the skins finally used (here are people who could make desitions more useful than me in this aspect) so if could be possible, count on me. Anyway I will continue editing and fixed errors whatever host you choose. --Killogwil (talk) 03:55, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * A media commons would be a bit more work but might be doable in the future. Anyway, subdomains on a single domain is much easier to do and we'll keep it in mind.  Thanks for your input. -- 03:57, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

I've been following this page in the last days, and even if i'm not an active/good contributor (nor good at well-written english) but i'm mostly on IRC, i still want to quietly tell my opinion. I didn't have anything against Wikia, but after seeing the incoming changes i think WoWWiki should move to avoid the forced uniformization to the social-network standards. A wiki exists to provide informations to people looking for them. If the wiki provides spam everywhere for all users, or highlights weird stuff (in a wiki the contributors should only be in the history. hell, the main guideline about editing is 'you don't sign articles'!), or simply forces his users to accept arbitrary decisions made only to gain 'moar profit', people shouldn't just silently accept this. I don't know if and who admins contacted to eventually move the wiki, I'd personally like both Blizzard (making WoWWiki -or whatever will be the name- an official site) and Curse (they always provided a good support and indipendence for their sites). I'm less positive about ZAM, seems too spammy. About moving to an own space... It would be the best option, but i'm not sure if you could afford money costs (i read many calculations in this page but you can't tell until you face a real bill) and i'd prefer to see the wiki safe and online in someone else hands, without risks to be taken offline. But i'm always pessimist about everything :P Either decision you will take, but i'll approve it and i'll follow you. Eraclito 13:23, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Your English isn't bad - indeed, thanks for your input. -- 13:40, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

 * I don't like the new skin. Simple as that. It's not user friendly.
 * Also, there's no way I'm going to accept having to edit all the infoboxes and tables I've created during all my life at WoWWiki. I spent a lot of time fixing them, and I won't stand having to edit them all because the new skin. I simply go *rage* of merely thinking about it.
 * All the features that wikia is creating, with this "social wiki" concept, should be completely optional, and be able to be removed from sight of anyone who doesn't want to see them.
 * Finally, we should be able to edit the wiki as most as we want. Being forced to use specific codes, images or layouts sucks hell, and completely spits on the concept of the free collaborative editing of a wiki.
 * Worst of all, we're the 10% of wikia's revenue, and we are completely ignored.--Lon-ami (talk) 09:12, October 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Lon-ami... Just looking at the difference between the two Transformer wikis mentioned above is huge... The non wikia one is clean, simple, easy to navigate with links that are obvious to what they are... The wikia one is clunky, ugly, enormous non-moving and non-scaling background pictures (I hate that) and the pages show up as HUGE GLARING WHITE BOXES on the predominantly black background... that mostly block out the non-moving background picture, thus making it pointless. Ad for facebook, ad for twitter, ad for transformers animated (which is at least slightly relevant), ad for the second movie, and that's with ads off. I profoundly dislike java and javascript, and don't like the wildly flailing menus every time I move my mouse around. I'm not nearly as busy here as I once was, but I was asked my opinion, and my opinion is abandon Wikia.--Azaram (talk) 16:27, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we should leave...if they have nothing to offer us other than a forced background that not many people like, why should we even bother?
 * Besides, this is a classic case of what caused the American Revolution...some big dumbass thought that they could force something on people and get away with it. The people who didn't like it said "Screw you" and left. Wikia has no right to force this on WoWWiki, other than that we're part of the community, and even then, I honestly doubt that excuses forcing a crappy background that shows less content and more adds on us. -- 19:18, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope it's a lot less bloody than a revolution, but otherwise yeah. -- 19:22, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree about leaving, we should leave if they force that more-ad-less-pic-annoying-to-navigate skin on us. Thing is, and i know this has been discussed before, but how are we going to do it? It'll cost around a million dollars quite literally to keep the site running without wikia. Btw, we should do a vote on this, just to see that the majority is with us leaving. We cant do it without a majority.--Sheffi (talk) 21:00, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Just my two coppers: from a certain point onwards, my experience with Wikia has been largely negative. Buying domains without the wiki administrators' consent, placing ads in the content area, steamrolling changes, locking users to specific skins, adding useless "features" that are irrelevant to actual wiki editing and only drag page load times down with walls of JavaScript... I know of one wiki that decided to move off Wikia and did: the Transformers Wiki. I'm fully in favor of WoWWiki following suit. - Sikon (talk) 07:07, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this is going to be relevant, But I've just tried to read the Wiki (Needed something to do whilst WoW is down (new patch, yay!)), and it's gone all strange on me. Has this happened to anyone else? If so, is it part of the problem? Jeffajaffa (talk) 00:30, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's part of the Wikia problem - they test new ideas on production servers and obvious bugs like this creep in. -- 00:42, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

My opinion was asked a few days ago, so I'll give it. I've never been particularly involved with the wiki community, and I'm much less involved now than I have been in the past, but I do have a fondness for this place, and I hate to see it go down the tubes. Wikia's rules seem arbitrary and irritating, and the new skin is awful. I'm really resistant to change, particularly visual change (I still use the old wowwiki skin, for instance, and I use wikipedia's old layout rather than the one they rolled out a few months ago), and if the wiki stays and I'm forced to use the new layout, I know I'll hate it, but I'll eventually get used to it.

The financial aspects are particularly troubling - both in the sense that the wiki will have to find a way to stay afloat on its own if it breaks off, and the sense that if WoWWiki really brings in 10% of Wikia's page views, that means that one wiki (out of what? hundreds?  thousands?) is generating 10% of its advertising revenue. You'd think they'd be a bit more open to the requests our admins make. The "community" aspect they're pushing is bogus as well - even if I wanted to blatantly advertise the fact that I play WoW all over my Facebook or Twitter, most of the people I'm friends with over on those sites couldn't care less. Integrating with social media sites does not somehow generate a "community" from nothing.

Long story short: I'd say leave Wikia behind, but in the end, I'll stick by the site whatever it decides. --Flyspeck (talk) 21:18, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Domain and Hosting Issues
So, if we do fork, there's no way wikia's going to sell us (our new host) the wowwiki.com domain. So, short of going to "wowwiki.net", which would be kinda shady in most users' (and google's!) eyes... what else could we use? -- k_d3 21:50, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * What about wowpedia.org? -- 22:20, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of hosting, it's a bit of a long shot but what about asking Blizzard to host? -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 03:29, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * We are asking multiple places, it's a bit premature to go over options at the moment. Mainly we want to get users' opinions and solidify what we can do before presenting what we've got.  Expect to see more details in the coming week(s) as the skin rolls out and we get more interest in moving off Wikia. :P  Feel free to suggest ideas though, especially if you have contacts. -- 03:35, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Get Curse to host it. 18:14, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think not! --Joshmaul (talk) 18:40, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's keep our options open at the moment, Curse is a valid option but I agree with Joshmaul, let's not jump from one corporate overlord to another without considering our other options. -- 22:16, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

OK, one of the users of Wikisimpsons contacted ShoutWiki and they said that they would have an option to upgrade to Monaco once they reach MediaWiki 1.16. It will cost though apparently. I am not sure if this is one instalment or monthly although I hope it is not the latter. Vector will be available once they update too. ☆ The   Solar   Dragon  ☆ 06:16, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * ShoutWiki is an option, they're just getting started though so I'm not really excited about it but we'll see. -- 11:41, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Once we find a place to host this, we might consider asking Blizzard to give us a sub-domain. That is "wiki.worldofwarcraft.com" would be nice. Not sure they would go for it, but could solve some of our name change problems for the better. I still think that hosting it is going to be the major deal. I could do it easily at my place of employment. At least the technical aspects would be easy. Polictical, not so much. And would you want to tie into a "Free" hosting environment if it meant you had to move if I changed jobs? Mgg4 (talk) 23:32, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you work for a webhost or something? Any idea what it would cost without your "employee discount"? -- 23:37, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I do web hosting, but it's for our own software as a service. We are not a "Web Hosting Company" in the way you would think of one.  I could check into that if it becomes necessary, however, there are web-hosting services that we could look into, if we wanted to maintain the code/pages ourselves.  Some of the other groups I belong to get some pretty good deals.  Now the volume of this wiki might be a problem at some of those ISP/ASPs, but I'm sure something could be negotiated.  Are we at the point where we want to start seriously looking at this yet? Mgg4 (talk) 23:58, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * We're at the point where we're considering the costs/benefits of each option so we can decide what is attainable vs. not, so yes I would say this would be a good time for that. -- 00:03, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

I totally support moving it if puts power back in our hands. ::coughs up dust:: Timing it with the release of Cataclysm would be great. How much does it cost to keep a site like WoWWiki afloat anyway?-- Hobinheim  ( talk ·  contr ) 04:00, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Bandwidth would probably be the biggest concern - according to WoWWiki gets about 2 million pageviews per day.  As far as space needed, the database size (not including images) is about 2.6 GB, including images is probably quite a bit more.  And then room for growth.  It could be a fair penny if we went independent, and then we would probably have to negotiate for ads to pay for it, which would be more work.  Best option would probably be to get into some other existing system, but we shouldn't rule out the independent idea out if that sounds like fun to someone. -- 04:05, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the independent idea because it helps keep us out of messes like this. And a raw 2M hits per day won't be a big deal at the start since people will be initially confused and divided about the split. But once people start to get the message and Cataclysm comes out, all bets are off I guess. It doesn't sound like fun as much as it might be a necessary evil. Can Google ads at least put a dent in that? =)-- Hobinheim  ( talk ·  contr ) 04:10, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a general FYI if anyone's still looking for me (pretty sure I've got all of the off-list emails answered): I'm crashing for the night--gotta open at work tomorrow (later today >.<). I'll be back around 14:00 EDT (18:00 UTC/10:00 PDT). -- k_d3 04:14, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * (oops, sorry hob. didn't mean to edit over you there. >.<) -- k_d3 04:19, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2.6 MM pageviews equates to what in terms of bandwidth. There are hosting companies out there that have certain limits on bandwidth, but those are limits like "700 GB/month".  I suppose if we knew what the average size of a wowwiki pageview is, we could figure out what our average monthly bandwidth would be.  Most of the hosting providers are going to allow 30-40 GB of storage with that level of account, so storage of the database shouldn't be a problem. Mgg4 (talk) 00:07, October 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * According to we have 48,231 images.  Assuming about 600KB per image adds about 30GB of data. A blank, uncached page is about 800KB in bandwidth (on the wowwiki skin).  Our biggest (by code) commonly-loaded page is Patch mirrors which is about 1.22MB.  A big, popular page with lots of images is Thrall at 1.60 MB. -- 00:18, October 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * So, if we look at a nice round number like 1.0MB/page, and 2 million hits per day, we are looking at about 2GB of data transfer per day, or about 60GB per month. I just pulled up one of the hosting companies I've worked with, and they have shared server solutions for about $25/mo, with 40GB of storage and 320GB of transfer per month.  A Virtual Machine (VM) solution (still shared, but a bit more isolated and secure) is $100/mo and gives you 40GB of storage and 700GB of transfer.  Additional disk storage is available on either plan for an up-charge.  The "Shared" hosting is on a Linux platform (I believe they use RedHat), and the VM solution is available with either Linux or Windows Server 2003 (a bit old now, but still servicable).  We would need to look into what the revenue stream from ads would look like to see if this was going to make sense financially.  If the adds are not going to pull in the $$ to cover the costs, we would be well advised to stick with Wikia, regardless how bad they make our pages look. Mgg4 (talk) 00:42, October 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Your calculations are off by 2^10; assuming 1MB/pageview, the bandwidth figure is closer to 2 TB / day. -- foxlit (talk) 13:11, October 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we also need to somehow account for cache and knocking off all the crap Wikia code adding to bandwidth. Knocking out all the common stuff in cache brings average page loads to 200 KB, which is closer to 400 GB daily (assuming we have 2.0M pageviews). -- 13:16, October 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * My main point was that he was off by a factor of 1000; shaving off a factor of 5 still lands us in >10 TB / month land, which is basically infeasible without multiple dedicated servers. Furthermore, bandwidth is not the only consideration: concurrency and dynamically generated content hurts at this amount of page views. In short, we're looking at thousands of US dollars per month.
 * That is not to say that self-hosting is not a fun thing to consider -- just that any individual saying "I'll pay for this out of my pocket!" is probably not estimating the size of the problem properly. -- foxlit (talk) 16:35, October 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * With self-hosting, you still have to consider ISP costs and their "unlimited" clauses. Also, I didn't know Wikia owned the domain name. That sucks, think of the countless thousands of links from external websites, especially addon hosting sites and the WoW forums. — EGingell (T|C|F) Treader of Cenarion Circle 18:01, October 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Getting links switched really wouldn't be a problem. The Blizzard community is quite close.  Its not that difficult to go talk to an admin of any of the other fansites as most have IRC channels on freenode as well (wowuidev, wowhead, wowace, etc), even Boub from mmochamp idles in wowwiki's channel.  It would be the work of maybe 10 minutes to talk to heads of each section of the community to ask them to begin to switch their links around, and/or ask Boub to post something on MMOChamp about a wowwiki split, and maybe send an email to WoWInsider to inform their readers as well.  It wouldn't take long at all for an email to hit a Manager at Blizz (I do believe kd3 has multiple contacts there, as do other sysops/users) to tell them the move happened, and ask if they could change the Official Fan Site page to link to the new address.  The biggest problem would be google - wowwiki.com would show up before the new site. :( Resa1983 (talk) 18:30, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

Worrying about bandwidth sounds a bit premature. Sure going out of pocket isn't sustainable, but it's only not sustainable if the fork is successful. And we don't have know that much yet. We don't even have anything planned! So I wouldn't worry about it for now. We're not going to be a runaway hit right off the bat. WoWWiki via Wikia will still absorb a lot of shock to the system for as long as they carry the WoWWiki banner, which in the foreseeable future should be forever. Sad face.-- Hobinheim  ( talk ·  contr ) 19:31, October 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * So I read through this entire page of comments... and peeked at some of the never ending stream of negative comments on the blog. I'm pretty much going to say, until I see good evidence in the contrary, it's probably best to leave wikia, and there couldn't be better timing than Cataclysm if that is how it goes down. It's a pity that the community would have to rebrand in order to make it happen, but that does open up opportunities to pair with Blizzard (at least in theory, whether they would be willing to entertain the possibility of a subdomain is another thing entirely).


 * However, it does seem pretty likely that wowwiki as we know it is coming to an end, one way or another, as do all good things. The trick it seems is what to make of this. To just let it happen or try to take some initiative and attempt to make a fresh start work. If it doesn't work out, what's the worst that will happen? Some how or another, the people who have enjoyed contributing to wowwiki will do so in another fashion.


 * I have a friend who does hosting as a small business on top of his 9-5, and who said he really enjoys working for non-profits. I might see if he'd be willing to at least chat in private with admins and give some estimates, to get a rough idea of what the cost would be to truly go independent versus the piggy back route. I know he's familiar with wikis, although I'm not sure about mediawiki in particular.


 * Just my 2 cents. I don't know how much it means at this juncture while I'm on haitus from WoW. 07:38, October 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd hate to see WoWWiki die off, due to this... short of buying every RPG book, novels, etc this is the one and only source to find out information of so many Warcraft characters, events, and overall lore of the Warcraft Universe... now while the main WoW site tries to have a simple history encyclopedia, it is very inferior to what is here. And the same goes with WoWWiki being an inferior database site for items, compared to WoWhead or Thottbot, but the main purpose of WoWWiki is about the lore aspect of the game, so if it can be salvaged in anyway... I'd gladly continue using it for information. If of course it stays on wikia and the new skin makes it too annoying to edit stuff, then sadly I will stop editing. But if we can move and take most of the community with us, then I'd happily support it. 21:32, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

I'm really big fan of HostGator, fairly cheap and great customer service. They offer unlimited space and bandwidth (the gotcha is INODE counts and no chat servers) and I think they actually honor that. May be something to look at, though I know everyone has a preferred web host. -=- Drazisil [t/c] 22:14, October 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll just name a decent name. What about warcraftwiki.com?-WoWDeathknight (talk) 02:01, October 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * It's taken. Hong Kong beat you to it. Always remember to WHOIS the names. :) -=- [[Image:IconSmall_DrakeAzure.gif]] Drazisil [t/c]


 * I just tried to search it and I couldn't find it.-WoWDeathknight (talk) 02:19, October 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * There are many names that are taken, but not used. It' was a good name, I agree. If you want a good place to check if names are taken may I suggest domainsearch.com ? -=- [[Image:IconSmall_DrakeAzure.gif]] Drazisil [t/c] 02:27, October 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * warcraftserieswiki.com is available!-WoWDeathknight (talk) 02:31, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

IMO, Independent is the way to go. Forgive me Paul, He who owns a thing, controls a thing. If WoWWiki.net is available, someone go grab it now before some cybersquatter does and we have to pay even more for it. Sure there are going to be setup costs. Given the size and scope of this community, it is entirely possible that any ad services could offset the monthly operational costs, and possibly even the setup costs. Granted, someone may have to take that on as their main focus, but we have the advantage of recognizable name brand here. Our Guild liked and used this format so much that when it came to build the Facta Non Verba website, I setup a server, downloaded the Wiki software and imitated the look of this site as best I could (thanks again to those who helped). Porting the data to the new location will be tedious, annoying, problematic and buggy. Yep. Seems that a Cataclsym is coming to WoWWiki as well and the best way to handle it is head on. Ariule (talk)


 * WoWWiki.net is registered, presumably by some cybersquatter. -- 08:31, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

I can't imagine that wikia would allow their version to tell people about our version.
 * I think the new skin is worse than the previous ones, but leaving apparently means competing WoW Wiki's. If we 1) find a good domain name, and 2) find a good replacement host; then we still have to get editors to understand the difference between the old "WoWwiki", and the new one. Questions:
 * Can we take all the existing content as is?
 * Even if most of us stop editing the wikia version, what stops wikia from copying new info from us to keep their version current.
 * How do we let new players and potential editors know about the new version?
 * Because of the above, I guess I lean towards staying even though the wasted space on both sides of the monitor (even my laptop is 1920 px) is very annoying.
 * Having said that, I will follow wherever the core editors go. —MJBurrage(T•C) 19:35, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes.
 * Nothing. The license (CC-by-SA) specifically says they may do so, and it is the license which Wikia presumes allows them to keep their current content.
 * We advertise to the WoW community. Every fansite we'll ask to post something (possibly the blizzard spotlight), and then stuff on the official forums. Ingame too, if you want to go that far, but you can just go with word-of-mouth in that space rather than spamming in /2. :) --&#123;&#123;SUBST:User:Sky2042/sig}} (talk) 19:43, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Not sure where to comment in this flow. I've used wowwiki for about 3 years, and participate only inasmuch as clarifying minor issues, cleaning up language etc. However, I'm pretty experienced with both the traditional (c2.com) and modern interpretation of wikis. Wikis are essentially web editing communities, that seem to work because both of the categories of enablement *and* barriers that wikis present. It's important that wiki communities can direct their own fate in the access and management of their content, which wikia seems to be obstructing at the moment. It's *also* important that the means of organizing and communicating not be arbitrarily changed by powers outside the wiki community, which wikia is definitely doing with the upcoming changes. Honestly I don't see how a wiki community can trust them with this asymmetric relationship of them making chnages and you having to ask for them to not do so. This isn't a videogame, this is *your* content. JoshuaRodman (talk) 20:29, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly - they're not listening to the community. Thanks for your input. -- 20:32, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Domain arbitrary break 1
wowpedia.com is open.--Sheffi (talk) 21:11, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not any more. And this is why we don't publicly suggest domain names. Actually, it's been registered since 2004 and is for sale. For sale is not the same as open/available. — EGingell  (T|C|F) Treader of Cenarion Circle 06:37, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly relevant to this is the mentioned likely possibility that Wikia will ban the leaving WoWWiki administration, preventing us from doing anything on this end one the move is finalized. Also, spreading the word about the new site and its value can not be stressed enough.-- 21:26, October 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think they would ban us... at most remove us from the admin group, but not ban us.... hmm would they? .. Nah. 05:28, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Some admins of wiki (russians) on Wikia who leave wikia get this -- 08:04    (User rights log) . . Uberfuzzy (Talk | contribs) changed group membership for Участник:Edward Chernenko from Administrators to (none) --Strizh (talk) 23:29, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's odd. Did he make a big fuss or something?  Usually Wikia doesn't de-op inactive admins (unless they do what we're about to do). -- 23:47, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * JS redrect to new host. Bad way to leave Wikia. --Strizh (talk) 23:57, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Funny -- Forum:Anti-Wikia_Alliance --Strizh (talk) 23:59, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

For hosting, dreamhost.com gives unlimited storage, databases, bandwidth, etc. The only limit to their shared hosting is ram. Which would probably be a big issue with a site of this nature. As far as all the features we are giving up (facebook, etc), all you need to do is find somebody experienced with mediawiki who can implement them. The technologies are very easy to use. I have been working with mediawiki for years, btw, and would be happy to help. Slithytove2 (talk) 12:04, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Where you see a feature, I see... not good things. :) Were we to add more of the "given up features" to the site, we'd probably reimplement them incrementally and using extensions we catch from mediawiki.org, rather than the somewhat proprietary (they might not actually be proprietary; I haven't checked) extensions that Wikia has developed (you'll notice that almost none of the ones they've forced on us have MediaWiki extension pages&hellip;). --Sky (talk) 15:41, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Some thoughts from Wikia
The new skin is something we have been working on very intensively over the last few months, and I know that several here have been heavily involved in the beta testing stage of the project. Right from the start we knew this was going to be a difficult move for many established wikis and long-term users. There are big changes in this skin, and the first look is a shocking one to anyone used to the old look. But I’ve been using it for a while now, and I can honestly say that it's now jarring to me each time I have to switch to Monaco.

We've talked on the staff blog about why we are making this change. We want to make every wiki on Wikia the best it can possibly be. Your content is the biggest part of that, of course, but our part is in making an interface and features that attract people to the site and help them understand what it is and how they can take part.

The new look will be something we will be working on well beyond the release date. The beta testing has been vital in developing this skin, and feedback as it's released and used by more people will be helpful as well. We'll also be watching very closely to see how it's used and what the effects of the changes are on editors and readers.

Some of you have tried the skin, and hopefully will have seen how the beta version has changed over the last few weeks. For the others, I'd urge you to give it a go as it's released. I think that, like me, you’ll find this is a skin that will really take the WoWWiki interface to the next level. -- Sannse (talk) 22:06, September 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * How long would you conservatively estimate until the next massive skin refresh/revamp? One, two, three years? I'd also like to thank you and the other staff for all the hard work you do. Over the last few weeks you've taken a lot of bile and abuse over this reskinning. Putting aside all the technical issues and details I wish I could wave a magic wand and lower the stress levels in the Wikia offices a couple notches. --Kollio (talk) 08:03, October 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * The intention is that this skin will be the base for a long time to come. It’s been designed to be a foundation for the future, something we can build on long-term... rather than needing another large shift. I wish I could answer your question more specifically, but we don't want to make predictions that we can’t back up 100%
 * And thanks for your kind words about the staff :) -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 18:35, October 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Can i post some criticism of the new look, I don't want to sound mean, but i think some things are either unnecessary or obstrutive at least according to the images posted on here--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:08, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't speak for Wikia, but they've been open to criticisms (even though they haven't acted on them much). -- 23:22, October 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * If it helps, Sannse, what I don't like about wikia's latest decisions is this forcing to make wikias something more: blogs, social networks, etc. A wiki is a wiki, and I don't like to have those things around. I was fine with my watchlist, and I don't like followed pages a bit.
 * Call me old school, but I want to edit in the wiki as I've always done, and avoid all those, in my opinion, useless things. If you want to make a blog-esque thing, then user your personal space. We could then make some new types of pages, and link it directly; but completely optional, and built over what we have, without new functions that come over what we already had. Yeah, user friendliness is important, but there's a difference between user friendliness and editing for dumbs, with all this buttons and options.
 * Wouldn't it be easier to explain in a small tutorial what's each wikicode for? Just saying. It's good for the new people, and I guess the social network theme attracts them more, but it's just bad for us who were already here and don't want shinny features messing up with our wiki.
 * As for the skin, I'd prefer to keep the current one. I didn't like to change from the previous one, but well, it wasn't that bad in the end, and navigation was fine. The new model doesn't look good .--Lon-ami (talk) 08:42, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it lose it's wikiness, but are the changes already on? because from the screenshots the posted here it seems that you added a right bar and this is a serious design flaw, it cramps up the article it has nothing interesting it's obstructive(damages the article) and hurts the eyes to read such a small article--Ashbear160 (talk) 11:22, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you really need four ad spaces per page, i'm not trying to cut on your profit but wasn't 3 ad spaces enough per article?--Ashbear160 (talk) 11:25, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * The right bar is obstructive and unnecessary it adds nothing why should i care what new images were added and new articles were made, when i'm trying to read the article it makes no sense these things should be OUT of the article--Ashbear160 (talk) 11:34, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * i don't care about the toolbar because this is not a blog this is a wiki, so i'll nver use it and i think only a small minority will--Ashbear160 (talk) 11:37, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to point out there are technically 5 ad spaces per page in the new look. -- 11:57, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback Ashbear. The ad placements are still being worked on some I believe, although the top two, and the 1 or 2 spotlight sections (depending on article length) are in the positions they will probably end up in.  Logged in users only see spotlights and ads on the main page, so hopefully they won't get in your way too much :) -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 18:02, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * You should change the bar from the right to the left, in the right it gives me headaches because the article is very small and too much to the left where the article is, and the weakest eye is the left, it gives me headaches because i'm reading with mu right eye from the cornr of the left screen...--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:58, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Apathy
I don't care either way. I just wanted to chime in with this: if you abandon Wikia, you will lose some features (Forums, My Home, etc.). You'd also, probably, pay out the ass for hosting since most website hosts that offer unlimited bandwidth and disk space also have a buried "within reason" clause that allows them to charge overages despite the literal meaning of "unlimited". — EGingell (T|C|F) Treader of Cenarion Circle 03:04, October 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Forums aren't a Wikia-exclusive feature. MyHome...I don't care about MyHome.  At all.  We're discussing the other things too. -- 03:05, October 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not really a contributor here and all I ever used WoW Wiki was to learn more about how I can create great infoboxes, etc. I'm greatly disturbed by the new skin and I totally support the move of major wikis as a protest to Wikia's mandatory changes. I just wanted to note you have more options than ShoutWiki --which is rather new and has some bandwidth problem from what I can tell. Wikkii is a free wiki hosting service I read about in GuildWiki's discussion page about moving. It offers complete control of a wiki --you even have to install MediaWiki yourself in case of free Advanced Hosting. ~ Akadirgun (userpage &#8285; talk) 07:23, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Except you get to use a .net domain, which search engines hate. Ajraddatz Talk 12:31, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like some Wikkii wikis are on .com. But I doubt we'll be going there anyway. -- 12:40, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of them are, except the advanced hosting ones are required to have a .net, from what I've read. Ajraddatz Talk 13:44, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never seen a case of search engines hating .net domains. -=- [[Image:IconSmall_DrakeAzure.gif]] Drazisil [t/c] 22:15, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * As i was reading all other opinions, WoWwiki is good sourse of infos for fans of Warcraft, I totally support whatever actions doned by admins here. 23:29, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

I'm really not sure where to put this, but after all this, I HAD to say something. I love Wowwiki. Wherever Wowwiki goes, I'm going. If it stays, fine. If it leaves, tell me, and I'll be there pronto. I just regret that wikia is screwing up all this after all these years. You guys are great. Whatever decision you make, I'll be behind it. *gives a dramatic salute*--Blayaden (talk) 03:01, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Good to hear, thanks for your input. -- 03:04, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

This is kind of how I feel. While I would miss the My Home, I wouldn't exactly be put out about it. So if the large portion want to move to a different domain, then I'm cool with that. just shoot me an email so I know what the new address will be. OkolorionTalk Contribs  00:55, October 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * Just out of curiosity, what does the My Home offer that the Watchlist, Contributions list, and Recent changes list do not?-- 02:22, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * It offers the three in one in a more simplified manner, i actually like my home on how pratical it is to navigate, but i can give it up for a wiki without right bar giving headaches--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:48, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

Russian WoWWiki
If you decide to leave, we would like to leave with you. Because we have the same problems that you have... even more. --Strizh (talk) 08:18, October 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm the admin and founder of the Spanish WoWWiki, but I don't pay too much attention to it, I'd say none, since I prefer to spend my time here, mostly because I hate our localization, and I prefer to polish things here before starting to translate something that's going to be changed any time.
 * So no, I don't think I've any right to force es.wow community to leave. One of the other reasons I don't pay too much attention to it is the lack of community. Right now there's no more of 10 active users, and most of them are "new" to working with wikicode, so I don't think they would care too much.
 * I'd rather solve our issue with WoWWiki before starting with other wikis, really.--Lon-ami (talk) 08:33, October 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * For this reason I bet for one comunity based in en.wowwiki tools. Some lazy admins are too much time away to check the java and code problems :P. It should be more easyly if the code is universal for all subdomains. --Killogwil (talk) 12:10, October 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * The biggest problem for us - the lack of tools to advertise WoWWiki in our "Russian" Internet, so the number of visits we have a lot less than it could be. --Strizh (talk) 08:42, October 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, the interwiki links should be located in some place more easy to find, actually are a little hidden to promote. Russian wiki is great and Strizh burns the midnight oil to make it possible. --Killogwil (talk) 12:10, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said above, we'd be willing to look at sharing our new domain with you so it's a bit easier to find the other translations (ru.wowwiki.net or whatever). And of course interwiki links would be a given. -- 12:12, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Russian WoWWiki will remain with you. Where you are, there we go :) --Strizh (talk) 13:34, October 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it would be very interesting and succesful if wowpedia becomes an "universal wowpedia", just like de Wikipedia. Instead of having different wikis, it would be best if we have one wowpedia divided and inter-linked in sub-wikis. This would also facilitate the promotion of other hypothetical wowpedias (Spanish, Russian, Portuguese, etc.). I don't know, this service would be superior to the one currently provided byWoWWiki and various separate wikis, wouldn't it?


 * PS: Sorry for my uly english. I'm ashamed. -.- Cemotucu (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Petition for no change
http://community.wikia.com/wiki/User:Bwog/Petition Yes i'm aware most petitions are useless, but meh just go there and add a signature it at least show that we do not like in more ways--Ashbear160 (talk) 11:57, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the best way to show we don't like the changes is to leave, but sign that if you think it helps. -- 11:59, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am with PcJ on this one. Also even if hell froze over and the chance was stopped/made optional it will only be a mater of time before they do it again (isn't this the second or third change forced on us recently?) :) Zasurus (talk) 19:23, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Looking for a safe stance on this debate? Me neither.
I guess the pros of staying with Wikia are much more sizable than a skin issue.

What matters on WoWwiki is the content, not the aesthetics.

On the other hand, I hate the new Wikia-imposed skin.

This is why, if I was directly asked the aforementioned question, I would answer: "No, let's stay with Wikia a little longer, seen if they balance this rigid and unyielding customizing policy with some good features".-- K )  (talk) 15:55, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * In response to that, I would say we've already taken that tack since the Monaco skin was forced on us (at least that was a bit easier transition). Also, the members of WoWWiki who were active in the beta have stressed repeatedly that this skin was not a good idea.  Wikia has shown again and again they are not willing to work with us. -- 16:06, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * i support you to leave it and suggest you could talk to scrolls of lore, they need a database and showed some interest--Ashbear160 (talk) 17:04, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not going to happen. -- 17:17, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Seat of the trouble - Advertising. More visitors, more money, for these reasons that all changes. Wikia has not gone the way Wikipedia. Hmmm... I do not want to waste my time on their wallets, when they are not considered in my opinion. And you? --Strizh (talk) 17:25, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * SoL? Too much bad blood. At least on their end... My stance is "They're still around?" -- k_d3 17:38, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * SoL? WoWWiki may well be independent, because it is self-sufficient. --Strizh (talk)18:01, October 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * As a SoL member, I don't think WoWWiki fits with it. SoL is a lore discussion forum, WoWWiki is a wiki. They're different things, and I'd rather them stay different. If you want to join one of them or both, then do, but don't mix what's fine without mixing.
 * There's a lot of SoL people that edit here, and I don't think anyone would disagree with me (save Ashbear, who seems to like idea).--Lon-ami (talk) 18:49, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I didnt' suggest fusing them, i suggested asking them about a host while making closer connections...--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:56, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that SoL people particularly like us... because of crap that happened years ago. But that's neither here nor there. Check the "Domain name and hosting issues?" section. We're looking at options for moving off wikia. -- k_d3 19:00, October 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm a SoL people and I like you. Your generalization makes me cry :( xDDD.
 * It's pure stereotypes and nerd rage, I'd say just 10% there dislike WoWWiki, and most of them because they don't understand how wikis work.--Lon-ami (talk) 20:12, October 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * The administration of SoL is apparently thinking about adding an encyclopedia to their site (on Lon-ami's thread). Which brings up an interesting point: With WoWWiki's user base split between the old Wikia WoWWiki and the new WoWWiki, what other factors will weaken the two sites (especially the new one)?-- 21:22, October 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * SoL and WoWWiki are two very very different beasts hardware wise. I could run SoL on my shared webhost. WoWWiki takes something like 2 or 3 very beefy central servers and a bunch of distributed caches to function. I don't even want to do the bandwidth math. -- Mikk (T) 20:24, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * yeah i know no crap about hosting--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:30, October 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * I say change. The Wikia skins are excessively busy. [[Image:IconSmall Draenei Female.gif]] Farseer Lolotea • talk • contrib 21:43, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break (version 3.0)
Wikia, if you are listening, you're out of your minds with this skin. WoWWiki, if you are listening, hi! -- TheHutty (talk) 02:58, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point, myself. I couldn't have said it better. Regardless, this skin is bad. If you can leave, I'm right there with you. If you can't... I may just have to stop using Wikia. -- TheHutty (talk) 02:58, October 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * I am right their with you. Does anyone know how to delete a wikia account? WoWwiki, If your looking for my vote, then i say leave wikia [you will be better off in the longterm] ChrisClayton (talk) 05:13, October 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't delete a wikia account, you just stop using. 05:30, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

My 2¢
I, myself, think that it wouldn't be too unreasonable for us to leave. I'd argue against it if users were given the option between the two interfaces, but they're going to remove that option on the 20th, so. In my opinion, the new version looks terrible compared to the classic WoWWiki I know and love. My only grievance is the loss of My Home, something I worship heavily. I suppose there's also the issue of the two WoWWikis, and I'm not entirely sure as to how we could rectify this. I say go for it, but we should probably figure out what to do about the multiple WoWWikis thing if we can. -- Sebreth (T.C) 06:31, October 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Reading over these comments it looks like there is going to be a community split regardless if we move or stay. Given the fact that wikia doesn't care in the slightest about their users opinions, I think we'd be better off moving.
 * As for the two wiki's, as more people move over to the new one this one would probably slowly die out. Kiingy (talk) 08:44, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if it didn't die out and loads of newbies edited and updated all the time it would become a mess. If you watch the edits that happen currently somoene will throw together an article or add to an article with information that MAY be correct but is written badly then by the end of the day one of the very small number of GOOD editors comes along and cleans it up (This has happened to most of the changes I have made! ;-)). As most if not ALL of those "GOOD" editors will move if we go all that will be left is lots of badly written (but maybe correct) articles that are hard to get information out of! Look at this post I am writting now for example! HUGE and badly written but all I wanted to say is in it! ;-) Zasurus (talk) 19:29, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Update from Kirkburn (of Wikia and WoWWiki)
As you know, I've been fairly quiet on this recently - I hope you can understand I am in an awkward place to comment from. However, I do wish to repeat that you aren't being ignored, and I am making sure that you're being heard. However, most posts from Wikia staff regarding the new skin can be found on the Community Central wiki Wikia Staff Blog, and changes are being made based on your (and others') feedback. For example, see this post for notes on why we're fixed width and have a sidebar, and for notes on some of what has changed during the beta period. Lots more posts are coming.

In all honesty, I like the new skin. There are elements that I might personally change, but the skin is designed for more people than myself. I certainly also hold some affection for the 'wowwiki' and Monaco skins - especially since I helped design the Monaco skin. I don't believe the monobook-like skin is going anywhere, though it may need to be merged with the monobook skin (which should give the added bonus of automatically taking core monobook updates).

From an insider's perspective, I can assure you that Oasis is not a 'done deal', and is still very actively worked on. There are bugs around, but they are being squashed very rapidly. Functionality tweaks are also being worked on all the time, and I am also making recommendations based on issues you've been seeing (e.g. height of the stuff at the top of the page). While certain aspects are unlikely to change (fixed width, sidebar), that doesn't mean none of it will. As many of you know, I am a product manager at Wikia - this means I am often working on projects that are intended to make your (and others') life easier: it was very obvious to me that this was getting increasingly difficult in the previous skin, and sometimes it was detrimental to the product. I realise not everything is of particular interest to wowwiki, and I hope we can talk more to you guys about in future that when we bring new stuff. I continue to have big plans for the rich text editor, and I am hoping we get it to a point where it can work well on wowwiki (recently some annoying limitations from the core editor, CKEditor, have been lifted).

Anyway, I wanted to give you some insight from my own perspective as being a long standing wowwikian (and now also Wikia mole :)), and I hope it is of interest. 13:13, October 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * The answer for us, imo, is pretty simple: let Monaco stay as an option for registered users.
 * I think that's the major problem. Give us freedom to choose and this will be over.--Lon-ami (talk) 11:15, October 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * I second this. On the one hand, I like this Wiki being on Wikia - I've got a Wikia account, and th one account covers a whole raft-load of wikis I visit occasionally.  On the other hand, I like the Monaco skin, very very very much.  I use it on every Wikia site I visit.  I would be very greatly disappointed if I could no longer do so. And finally, on the 'other' other hand ... every single last one of those Wikia wikis I care about, is talking about doing the same thing: leaving Wikia.  It strikes me that Oasis is already damaging Wikia's core mission, it's very purpose: to provide a single, easy-to-use home for a vast panoply of Wikis.
 * As things seem to be headed, currently, Wikia stands to find itself left with little more than a wasteland of under-used, mostly-dead wikis - and that would be a crying shame. Allowing registered users to choose to stick with Monaco, on the other hand?  If the word was spread far, wide, and 'fast' ...?  Would stand a good chance of keeping them all on Wikia.  Including, most importantly (to me, at least) ... this one, right here.--PaxArcana (talk) 16:49, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikia is resolved to remove Monaco. Thinking they will keep it is a pipe dream. -- 19:21, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Dreams are the stuff miracles are made from. (6 Dreams, a dozen Frozen Orbs, and Wishcraft profession at 440.  I think the recipe is a BOP drop from a boss somewhere ... 25-man Heroic ICC, maybe? ^_^ ) --PaxArcana (talk) 01:05, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

Well i definitely won't stay if the right bar that gives me headaches stay, i'm not up to have a headache everytime i enter in wikia--Ashbear160 (talk) 11:30, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comments (continued)
Just jumping in to give my opinion. Frakly, I was never a big fan of the shift to wikia in the first place. I loved the old wowwiki and the old wowwiki skin. Simple, clean, thoroughly wikipedia-like. No ads and none of that unnecessary extra stuff. I don't care for the new skin, and especially dislike how it stretches out the pages and adds all that crap to the top right of the page. If it weren't for that, I think it would maybe look fine.

My major concerns would be the status of the domain name, the split in users, and the resulting "shadow wikia" it would leave behind. There are thousands of links to www.wowwiki.com from websites and forums, particularily websites like wowhead.com which are used by nearly all WoW fans, and "WoWWiki" has pretty much been ingrained in the vocabulary of the WoW community.

In short... I think it all comes down to the domain. If wowwiki.com can't be secured, I don't think it's worth a move, barring some sort of godsend like CDev getting behind it and giving us encyclopedia.worldofwarcraft.com or something. WoWWiki-Suzaku (talk) 18:03, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Blizz got asked; we're waiting a response. That would be a godsend, yes, but we're not holding our breaths. -- k_d3 18:17, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * If they're worried about the logistics of hosting a lore site that relies on player contributions, perhaps http://lorebook.lotro.com might provide some reassurance. The LotRO site isn't as comprehensive as Wowwiki, because they don't have nearly as many contributors, but it does work. Turbine do have sections of "official game info" that can't be edited by just anyone, but the rest can. And players contribute most of the useful info. --w.woods (talk) 04:03, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Neat. I poked our fansite contact a few days back looking for an update. Still awaiting a response. -- k_d3 04:17, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I should point out the existence of the other "official" wiki I know of, which is GuildWarsWiki. That said, their wiki is apparently a fair bit more bureaucratic than the main rival, GuildWiki, making it less of a community place and more of a 'document the game' place. So, yeah, official wikis are not unheard of, but they are certainly in the minority (I know there are others, as well). --Sky (t · c) 04:29, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed what pcj was talking about when he said the articles are given credit to people which may not deserve it. I flipped the new skin back on to see something and noticed that images were stating "added by " with the latest user who updated the image... I already see this as an issue.. seeing how a few images were just "updated" for no real reason, among duplicates as well... just so they can have their name on it? Sounds like a bad practice to me and only promotes that behavior of claiming stuff on a wiki when nothing is supposed to be claimed cause it is on a wiki. 21:21, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

I think it should stay because we will lose tons of features. Hallowseve15 (talk) 22:08, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, what are you worried about losing? Most of Wikia's features we can re-implement on an optional basis... -- 22:12, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * For anyone worried about the features we will lose, Wikia is based of of the software 'mediawiki' (the software originally created for wikipedia), 95% of the 'made by wikia' features are simply features that work on the backend to connect the 'wikia network' together. Most (or all) features that me and you see are available inside the mediawiki software (or as free third-party extensions, listed on the mediawiki website) That is, assuming we are going to use mediawiki to power the site? ChrisClayton (talk) 03:04, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and we'll probably update to 1.16 in the process (WoWWiki is currently on 1.15) -- 03:06, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with moving out of Wikia. I've seen for a while that it's been limiting WoWwiki and its capabilities. Some of the ads and the skin changes have just seemed redundant. I support the move completely and I hope it's a smooth transition. Bigstackstwo (talk &middot; contr) 15:04, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

I'm throwing my support 100% behind a move away from Wikia. I have never been a fan of the whole wiki farm concept. I have been a long time supporter and user of independent Wikis, and if WoWWiki (or whatever it's being renamed) becomes an independent Wiki, I will be even more eager to support it. It's disappointing that the new WoWWiki will end up having to compete with the shadow of its former self, but a similar problem exists for all independent Wikis, because Wikia will always have a competing wiki for every independent Wiki (Bulbapedia vs. Pokémon Wiki for example) Burzolog (talk) 05:00, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Well it may suck for some about leaving the site, but whatever is the better deal I would take it. Like some, ya the new layout seems to be a pain. But wherever the new place is going to be. I'll be sure to try and head there to help out as well. The Alchemic Warrior of Travels (talk) 20:10, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for leaving wikia, personally i hate the new skin. but where would it be moving to exactly? can't think of a lot of websites we could go to. --1201 (talk) 08:29, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

If we decide to move out of Wikia, then what should we do?
Hi to all, I've been reading and thinking about all the comments. I'm not sure what to decide, but if we are going to leave Wikia, then I think we should at least see it as a business (although a non-profit one). We should first decide what would be the domain we should move to (maybe with a vote or other method), then see how much will it cost, then where would we get that money, and who will be the responsables to take action. Also we will need some estimations of how much will it cost to mantain the site running, and see if ads will give enough money to do it, if they don't, then, we should see where we can get more money. I would like your opinions of this. Benitoperezgaldos (talk – contribs) 00:32, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * The biggest issue facing us right now is the domain name - we've yet to really settle on one that works, we've come up with a few, but either they're taken or they have some other connotation that doesn't work. So if you have any suggestions, please present them. -- 02:03, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * And be careful. Wikia will likely reserve any juicy domains that you think of and suggest, provided that they have not already found it.-- 02:29, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * We must also remember this is a wiki about warcraft so we shouldn't take a huge consideration if we need to drop the whole "World of"--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:00, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Is there a plan?
I have been following this and as I have said before in the comments section vote for a move but this is a question about how this all works? I mean we have this huge amount of opinions some in favour, some on the fence and even some in favour of staying with Wikia and we have got lots of options but I feel that nothing new has happened recently. Is there a plan... a date that a decision will be made or even who makes the decision? Is it a vote between the admins or even the editors/users in general?

I don't like the idea that in less than a month (unless I misunderstand) we will all be FORCED onto the new skin and half the contents will break and most of the rest will look bad (I may have stretched the amount a bit! :P ). Is the plan to make a decision after we can all have a go at the new skin and move before it is law, or wait till after it is law? etc...

Really I am asking what the section title says "Is there a plan?" :) Zasurus (talk) 22:05, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have a plan and the idea is to get it all in motion before BlizzCon (and before the new skin becomes mandatory), but we want to get all the groundwork laid before we push it out. We are trying a few "last-ditch" things with Wikia and firming up the direction the wiki will go. -- 22:09, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) Was just worried this beautiful site would be crippled for period between skin going mandatory and move occurring (I know am being optimistic we will move! ;) LOL) Zasurus (talk) 22:25, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

I've experienced a major project-fork move before, so here's my thoughts
First thing's first, if you saw a domain name you really liked, you probably should have snagged it before you ever mentioned it publicly. Whois claims the name you're looking at is under some sort of "privacy protection" ownership and nameserved by "recently expired" servers, and if that wasn't by you guys, and the ISP who holds it isn't amenable to clearing it up for you... then you're too late, some domain scammer has already ninja'd the loot. Sorry.

Contrariwise, if it's you guys that have wowwiki.net on hold for the potential move, GOOD PLANNING whether you end up moving or not.

I'll mention this point under domain names, since someone else brought it up -- Com vs. Net vs. Org:

Our project moved to its matching .Net from a .Com - the .Org had at some point in the past been owned by one of the core crew and made to point to the .Com, but they'd allowed it to expire and an index-spamsite squatter took it. Google had no comments, no objections, and no score held against the .Net site that we could see. It slowly fluttered toward the top of searches as content continued to get posted and cross referenced. As long as people aren't abusing how interlinks are created to "pad their search score" Google honestly doesn't seem to care.

Second thing next: if you have a strong community, you can expect lighter traffic for the first month or two but it will pick back up as people pass the word that yes, it has not died, and still exists in a new home. If you have a weak community, that's no different than building the site from scratch was in the first place, except you have the advantage that some core editors already know each other. Fear not. All young level 80s get the same advice: your gearscore will improve :)

In our case we made a strong effort to retain some core traits of how the original site behaved, so that people who enjoyed how it always had been kept coming back... as soon as they found it.

Third, and I hope this does not end up applying to you guys but this is exactly why it's worth mentioning. If you end up with a forked project *and* the original fork tries to cover up all evidence that the new one exists, do not buy into the troll bait and indulge in any active backlash. In fact, it's a wiki, help clean up backlash - it's graffiti, and the only real cure to graffiti style vandalism is to keep scrubbing and repainting until the trolls go someplace else that's an easier target. Acknowledge the old site as its own fork and project, and encourage anyone who also wants to continue to work there, to indulge in both sites. Make them *different places* and make sure people know it. If the present site turns out not to be viable after all, let it find that out on its own. Just do whatever you can to make it clear that your new fork exists, with an active and experienced crew, and has real energy in it. Positive energy will get you the positive word of mouth you need in the politick of an active fandom. The biggest trouble if this happens, will be getting the word out as to what the new sitename actually is. Knowing it's alive but young might not give it a high Google rating, so it could be hard to search for until the community connections come through with some crosslinks.

In our case, the original host wanted to turn a monthly published webzine into a slashdot-like forum (news items changing all the time). There was genuinely the possibility that both could work out - but it was definitely NOT the thing longtime visitors had learned to love. Both being wikis could make for a stranger case, but I think the advice still holds water.

OK, that's my experience, now for my opinions on the current situation.

The WoW community has about a half dozen sites dedicated to addons, and they all seem to get along OK. I think the WoW community could survive this one forking off too.

I didn't have a login here to edit with and say all this; I found it a royal pain to create a login here to do it, and that encouraged me to try even harder to be able to comment. Firefox actually didn't work, either to "facebook connect" or to create an active login - although I think it managed to go so far as to reserve the name I tried to create as the active login, wasting it; I'm on a Macintosh. I had to resort to Safari, and even then it took some mild convincing. If your new site doesn't treat Mac, Linux, and BSD users like 3rd world citizens (in a rich world they still starve) then I'm all for the technical improvements. If Wikia is reading this and improves this point, that's *a good thing* - but so far reading above, they do not have a strong track record of fast technical improvements.

What the heck, find a way to support mobile phone webreaders too.

I enjoy the current site and have found its tables in some cases especially helpful. Changes which damage those tables actively damage the usefulness of trainer recipe lists and there are a decent number of those. If the new changes damage the box which tells the crucial features of a dungeon's permitted entrance levels, that's very bad. I use those a lot.

I'm not all that pleased with this color of brown, but it is what it is. At least it's not pasty white; I enjoy white on a darker background, so to that degree, I like it. Midnight blue's more my thing. Your mileage (or kilometres) may vary.

If you end up moving I would definitely be bookmarking both places. If it's easier to create an account I might be an editor on occasion.

It seems like you are making some genuine effort to plan your future so that one way or another this site survives. That's good, I like content surviving the cataclysm... in fact it was that kind of fear that drove me, during our project move. I was concerned that if the brave new world planned for us was a flop, the site would die :(

I'm not actually 100% against advertising on the internet, but my preferences lean strongly toward the following: 1. sites that manage the ads enough to yank out ones that infuriate their regular demographic. 2. Stuff that doesn't break browsers. 3. Offer a regular-donation option to subscribe to losing the ads. Of course one should have to login to clear them.

In my general experience point 1 is rarely achieved by groups who don't manage their own ad content. I believe the WoW community is a clear enough demographic that you guys could satisfy us. Facebook came up with an interesting answer to point 1: they have a "like" link, but a pulldown for dislike that lists 6 or 7 very generic categories of why someone dislikes it. Disliking an ad when you're logged in means you never see that particular ad again (though I'm not sure if that's permanent or merely during the same session). That gives them some way to satisfy the demographic without having to know who it is... and I suspect, to build demographic info they can use quite powerfully :)

Regarding point 2 I experienced an ad vendor called Burst that would 2 times out of 13 cause the page to only load their ad and never continue on to the real content. I no longer cared whether I liked the coupon or whatever - I hated it. Things like making noise when we have WoW foreground count under point 2, because it ruins our gameplay, while we expect WoWwiki to improve our knowledge and hence our gameplay.

Point 3 makes it clear to the ad-purchasing community what their real purpose for you is; fund the site. Perhaps you can have ads that get a lot of "like" ratings from logged in users get the opportunity to be presented in a special ad slot; that'd encourage advertisers to give you something aimed to amuse and please us, not just stuffed in our noses.

Of course if you manage to succeed at this change without having to continue to carry ads, uh, awesome, you win the lotto :D
 * Nice thoughts, thank you for your input. -- 11:58, October 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Lots of meat here. I don't have an intense position one way or the other but lean toward greater autonomy, and the guidelines above look very useful. I do find the new skin uglier, but I haven't found it crippling in function, which is the more important issue to me. (Thanks, Pcj, for calling my attention to this page.) -- ScratchMonkey (talk) 18:27, October 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * Starshine, I just had to say you're a great writer, your WoW metaphors are brilliant :) And for the record, I'm all for moving.Jerodast (talk) 08:58, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

Leaving page content behind
'all its current content would stay with Wikia for use as they see fit'

Hypothetically, after copying the content to a new domain (if that happens), could you not redirect every page to the home page and delete page history so this site is not usable any more? Would the wikia staff intervene?

As in the example of the transformers wiki above, obviously most of the editors moved to the new wiki which has thousands more articles, but the old wikia one is still attracting editors and viewers via search engines. I think the main problem with moving is the googlebait left behind. --Grynd (talk) 02:30, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Wikia would intervene. However with most of the major editors gone this wiki would more likely stall.  Less updates to a site generally means it goes lower in search rankings. -- 02:34, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Question about content in general: Do we really need all of the pages on this site? The pages about lore, fights, etc sure. But there is a page for every quest, and most of it just says the what the quest says. In my experience, people go to wowhead or thottbot to find quest info. If we do decide to move, or perhaps if we don't, we should have some sort of a meeting to discuss the future direction. wowhead/thottbot seem to have the monopoly (I know its 2, so not really a monopoly, but still...) on items and quests. I don't know of any other site that has the lore that wowwiki does, though. Personally, I come here for lore and information. The new fork could use some direction, and perhaps selective copying of pages, not them all. Slithytove2 (talk) 12:12, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not everyone comes here for the same thing. We'll take it all. -- 12:13, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I like being able to look at everything on the same site. I think that having articles about the lore, items, quests etc in one place gives a fantastic chance to see how everything links in. As for using wowhead/thotbot for quests, I do this sometimes, if I can't find what I'm looking for here, but you can be sure that I will get there through the links on this site. No, I think that having everything on one site is the best plan. Unless that is, we have to streamline the site to make it small enough to host ourselves. Jeffajaffa (talk) 12:19, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * The external links are there for a reason :) You could look it up here once, then use the external links to go to wowhead/thottbot with one click, rather than having to look it up 3 times. Also a great thing about the wiki format is you can have guides (such as the seasonal guides) and listings (such as Companion), and the items/quests/achievements need to all be linked in with those. --Grynd (talk) 14:27, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

My only concern in all of this is that we need to have the move to be painless to those of us who use this site frequently. I spend time on my user page, making it a nice "shortcut" to all of the things that I'm interested in. One thing that I think is important in this, is that wowwiki is the only place that had "real world references" from the game. It also stated notes that were actively constructed to be helpful or interesting by editors. Comments on Wowhead/Thottbot could be misleading. It could also be misleading here, but normally editors fix that stuff quickly. Knowing a particular detail on a certain quest might be important to me, especially if its a strong enough problem that I need to go hunting on the internets to figure out what it is I'm doing wrong. Another thing this site has that the others don't, is quest chains. I like to know the entire requirements of a quest, and the sequence of events that are required. Simply knowing what a quest involves in lore and function doesn't mean I know where it fits into the grand scheme of events. If the new page works as well, or even better than the current, go ahead. Otherwise, I would probably stick with the old one, as it is familiar. Just my two pieces-o-eight. Sraw (talk) 02:15, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * We will carry over all the same content. The format will be the same - a wiki where anyone can edit.  The main difference is where it is hosted and the "skin" around the content.  Wikia is pressing for more skin, less content.  Obviously we would prefer the reverse.  Thanks for your input. -- 02:18, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this edit can even be seen, now that the page is miles past this point. Anyhow. Can we not just edit the top of the pages we've contributed, leaving a note along the lines of "this page is no longer being updated, new site is over at whatever.example.com, the older content remains below as a reference"? Content is still there, but new users know that it's been abandoned. farmbuyer (talk) 22:03, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * We could, but Wikia policy is to remove such notices. -- 22:04, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated 2 cents
Forgive my brevity: I was on the wall about replying, then decided that every voice that speaks up does matter. I support the idea of moving away. I didn't read this whole page (I'm sorry, I just don't have time right now--I'll come back later and read in full)... I already have issues using wikia while playing because of the number of adds on the website and the amount of lag it causes... and I already struggle to edit /anything/ due to assorted wikia stupidities. So, I definetly support a move out of here. As for the issue (if it hasn't been resolved) of the domain name.. I dislike the idea of wowwiki.net, because it's too easy to get 'confused' with .com. ... maybe something like catawowwiki.com or thenewwowwiki.com or worldofwiki.com or warcraftwiki.com instead. Again, I'm sorry if the horse I'm beating is dead and I don't know it.. I'll read, edit/apologize later if I'm being stupid :) Colbywolf (talk) 19:53, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input! Every voice certainly does matter, we want to avoid splitting the community as much as possible.  Hopefully we can cut down on your lag with this move.  We don't intend to move to another WoWWiki-branded site, as that would be distasteful in a lot of people's minds (as well as confusing). -- 19:55, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

I am very new to Wiki code, and tend to not reply just because I'm unsure of doing it right, but I am with the move. I link to my guildmates, RP friends, etc nearly every day. It wouldn't take much for me to go through my various interweb places and update my links to the new page. Everyone I know will go to what is most useful, and keeps the same level of editors. Warcraftwiki.com is by far my favorite of the suggestions I've seen. ((Also, do we have a name already? Am I that late to the party? I even brought pancakes!)) Lastly.. Video ad's have made me want to abandon certain sites all together. Nothing is worse than listening to my raid leader, and pulling up an article to read along about moves during explanations only to hear about some product that I'm not interested in anyway... I bought a TiVo to get rid of most commercials, I don't want to watch them on the internet. Ameliaw90(talk) 18:12, October 16, 2010

Interwiki
If you take us with you, then what about this idea for reduce the amount of disc space? --Strizh (t20:19, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * We're not worried that much about disk space. The Commons is a bit more work than separate wikis - but may be a good idea in the future.  I think we'll probably have shared login between wikis though. -- 20:22, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely a good idea, though we'll have to see about the technical feasibility, since it's not really extension oriented. I'm pretty sure that the Wikimedia servers pay a price for using a combined Commmons too, but there is obviously a storage space increase. --Sky (t · c) 20:44, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

A Past Dealing With Wikia
Here's my thoughts on the matter. Thanks to Pcj for the encouragement to join in.

I come from a different Wiki. A Wiki where Jimmy Wales (Wikia co-founder) and Gil Penchina (CEO) insisted that they intended for us to have fewer ads. In the same communication, they promised that they would a) never force a skin on us, and b) report regularly on profitability (sharing any such profits with the community). Commitment b) has never been kept, and commitment a) is currently being broken with the imperative new skin. Now, frankly, I don't think b) ever had a snowball's chance in hell of occuring, but it could be interpreted as they would release finance information and spend a degree of profits from that Wiki, on that wiki. Be it unique features / features designed with that wiki in mind, or whatever. The commitment a) was one you could reasonable expect to be upheld, and it was not. That's downright dishonest, and most likely illegal. If that's how Wikia conducts their business, get out while you still can.

I'm sorry I havn't been active here. Similar to Wikipedia, the size of the userbase has just left me feeling rather intimidated. I'd be delighted to help in any possible way with the move, please do shout if I can be of use. I am currently doing a Computer Science course, and have used CSS and JS on wikis for quite some time. If in doubt, poke me.

I've used this Wiki fairly often, so thanks guys. I'll support you no matter what - via donations if the need arises - and wish you the best.

Cheers! A F K When Needed 22:24, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know how the size of the userbase can intimidate you, it would seem to me that the more active a community, the easier it would be to enter. Anyway, thanks for your thoughts. -- 00:16, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Meh, us humans can be strange some times. I know a lot of wikia contributors who've had a very hard time getting started with Wikipedia, to use an example.
 * I'm happy enough to get involved and work on articles, but when there's a lot of people around, it just feels like I wouldn't make much of a difference. A_F_K_sig_2.jpg A F K When Needed 11:53, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

WoWWiki hover Tooltip
i just noticed on the new wikia skin, that the wowwiki hover tooltip seems to be missing.

Now, i cant speak for everyone else but the hover tooltip was one of the best features of wowwiki. :)

1. it hasnt been added to the new skin yet (if so, is it possible to re-implement it, until we leave?)

2. wikias tou restriction wont allow it (if thats the case, why are we still here? jump in my van and lets go)

3. its broken.

Thanks,  // Loremaster Mosios (talk &middot; contr) 23:45, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I can add the functionality, but I would rather not - Wikia has chosen not to support my (and others') code with easy changes to theirs, so I will not support their code with easy changes to mine, especially since we're headed out the door anyway. I suggest you use the Monaco or Wowwiki skins.  Sorry for the inconvenience. (I'm pleased you like the tooltips though) -- 23:58, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Pcj, i just wasnt sure if it was broken or not... if the problem is with wikia then refer to option 2 and hop in my van :)  // Loremaster Mosios (talk &middot; contr) 00:32, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

On Monaco
I'm not involved here in any way, but I should point one thing out. Wikia's extensions, skins, and code modifications are available in their svn repo, there's a lot of junk that needs stripping out and cleaning up, but Monaco can theoretically be run fully on normal MediaWiki. I'm probably about 1/3 finished cleaning up Monaco myself, don't know if I'll finish though, I have a bad track record of abandoning projects half-finished when they aren't tied to something like my job. ~ NOTASTAFF Dantman(Local Talk &#8285; Animanga Talk) 02:36, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * When you get finished with it, we'll take a look - to have it as an optional skin of course. -- 02:38, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Difficult Times Are Ahead
I am fairly new to editing and creating of wikis, the most advanced I ever did was a couple guild pages from boiler plate. That being said I have frequented WoWwiki (Most of the stuff I learned about WoW I learned on WoWwiki.) for a long time and the soon to be forced upon skin makes it look like garbage in my honest opinion. I know that when/if we move things will never look the same and also more then likely WoWwiki won't be WoWwiki.com anymore. Where ever we end up there will be a definite adjustment period for everyone involved from editor to reader alike. With it comes many headaches and maybe some ulcers. May we find a new more welcoming home and may the transition be as easy and painless as possible.

I fear yet look forward to the move. If I can be of any help with anything with my scrub-ish editing skills let me know. Shisonaru (talk) 02:48, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it should be fun. We definitely want readers as much as we want contributors.  Thanks for your input. -- 02:52, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Maintaining the high quality of information we have come to expect and provide to this wiki will be difficult with this move, but time heals all coding errors. 05:34, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we'll get over it. -- 12:13, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have thought it would be the other way around as the problem with the move will be the fork and links going to the old site but all of the editors who use the site currently and edit/make the best articles will likely just move and therefore the high quality would be on the new wiki (unless you ment maintaining the high quality of information on the old wiki would be hard in which case... err ignore me! :P) Zasurus (talk) 19:40, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Some support
First thanks to Pcj for the message in order to notice this forum. I haven't been too active in editing this wiki lately, but I use it a lot to look up Warcraft information. I knew about this Wikia skin stuff from other wikis I'm working at, most notably the Editable Codex (Ultima Wiki) and the Dragon Ball Wiki, and both wikis are about to decide to move out of Wikia too. I know the whole moving-out thing is a pain, but I fully understand the reasons, and I'll be happy to continue contributing wherever WoWWiki ends up moving to.--Sega381 (talk) 02:58, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah cool. Yeah, it's going to be tricky to get everyone settled in, but we're working hard at it. -- 03:05, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

My opinion
If they're forcing us to change the skin thats already a mark against them in my books. Here's my view: as long as wowwiki is still a good centre of information (which it is) and people know about said transition (via non-user home page or something) then i'm all for leaving it. I myself prefer the wiki pre-ads and the wowwiki-skin. Not much in the way of opinion but might as well :> Saberd of The Shattered Sun (talk) 07:21, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion, I don't think there is more than that to be said. -- 12:13, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * I basically share Saberd's opinion. I have accepted the recent clunkier UI/skin as the price of my not figuring out how to customize it, so I'd be in favor of restoring the older appearance (for usability reasons). I have used one other wikia site, rarely, so I don't benefit much from the single wikia login, and I don't like the ads wikia has for itself. I can't say I really grasp the cost of conducting the move, but the hypothetical state of having-moved appears to be an improvement over the current state. (For a domain name, does wikia also own wowpedia.com? I see it redirects here.) -- Harveydrone 12:56, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

A word from foreign wikian
Well... I'm sorry that I won't read whole discussion, but now it's quite huge, so I will mark only my questions about that leaving.

As an administrator of polish version of WoWWiki I'm obviously awared about co-operation in future, if english WoWWiki would leave Wikia and polish one would stay (I'm not thinking about moving from one, simple matter - I'm not good enough in technical matters to carry out such operation). I'm not hiding, that polish articles are mainly direct translations from english. So I want to know, if articles will be still 'open sourced' so we could work on the translation (polish edition is tiny comparing to this one, but still is one of the biggest sources of knowledge about Warcraft univesrse and I still want to improve that source) and, of course, link articles in easy way (as now, when we can use language tags as [en:] or [pl:] . As I am participating not only on polish wiki, but also I try to write here, I want both wikis to grow.

But I must also say, that this matter with changing skins is pretty annoying for me. As I'm not keen on technical matters, I had to contacts our retired technical admin to make new skin, which is very annoying to me. Witdth of right panel is annoying, because it breaks graphical shape of articles. I fear that maybe we will be forced to create new infoboxes, because present infoboxes used in new skin look awful.

I think that's everything from my side. Hope, that your moving won't collide with our cooperation. Morpheius (talk) 08:28, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Polish WoWWiki is welcome to join us. Russian WoWWiki and Spanish WoWWiki have already shown interest, so it will be nice to add one more translation to our number. -- 12:15, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

An offer
Hi,

It's been a while since I edited stuff here however I still do (like many people) make use of this site. I'd hate to see this site struggle with things like finding new host/location. I currently host some rather busy mirrors for some Open Source software projects (Mozilla, Ubuntu and CentOS) from my own infrastructure in London, UK - the reason I mention this is I'm able to offer a server, bandwidth and (if needed) hands on server management should something go awry. I currently have a few spare Quad Core Xeon/8-16GB RAM server's that are used as "hot-swaps" at least one of which that I could offer up to you for your needs - it would also be possible to provide you with other useful things as well should you be interested (Server for caching with varnish for example). The project that I run to host the above is funded via donations from people who care about OpenSource/Community project's and myself so there's no cost implications there.

If this project is interested in this offer please get in touch with me and I'll be glad to help out :)

10:45, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice, thanks for the offer! We'll keep it in mind. -- 12:17, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Take a Leaf from Blizzard
Blizzard doesn't release a product until it's ready. I think the same thing should be said for Wikia.

It seems like Wikia is rushing toward releasing the new skin, with post-release fixes being pretty much guaranteed.

It doesn't help that this is both contentious and complicated. I'm sure everyone can find things they like about the new skin and things they hate about it: I'm in that boat myself. So Wikia gets inundated with a wave of angry, sometimes ill-informed complaints. It will take time to sort the wheat from the chaff and then implement the needed changes; I don't see all that happening in less than a month. (I suspect the timeline was derived before the beta went public.)

IMO, Wikia should delay the implementation of the new skin until we've all had a chance to sit back and take stock of the situation. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 13:26, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * unless they change the position of the bar which leaves me sick i'll leave and ask wowwiki to leave

--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:59, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if they listened to us-I was in the beta and we did stress that they shouldn't push it live just yet, but they seem to be in an awful hurry. -- 14:03, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

1 Question
Why?--JVS (talk) 15:58, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why we leave or why do wikia does this to us?--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:04, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Leaving Wikia Legaly
Unlike Wikipedia, Wikia was created with profits in mind. Heres a quote from wikipedia "wikia, inc is a for-profit Delaware company" I'm not a lawyer but im assuming any smart company would ensure their assets are protected. the question is, is wikia a smart company? and if so, is their anyhing that we want that we cant take with us, legally? or am i thinking too much?  // Loremaster Mosios (talk &middot; contr) 02:34, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * "Is Wikia a smart company?" No. Plus all original content on this wiki is licensed by CC-BY-SA. The rest is used by permission from Blizzard Entertainment.  If and when they lose their fansite status, they would probably be on shakier ground than we are. -- 02:31, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * See Copyrights. -- k_d3 02:31, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * It also relies on Wikia getting off their butts and fixing the image dumps so we CAN leave. Resa1983 (talk) 02:36, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I know we can take the content freely, i just wasnt sure if their was anything else we want to take. Want to make sure we have our backside's covered 1000% - wouldnt want grumpy lawyers breaking down our new door :)  // Loremaster Mosios (talk &middot; contr) 02:40, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * What else is there to take besides content? -- 02:41, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not much, just wanted to make sure we have looked into everything thoroughly. Also, you mentioned 'CC BY-SA' im sure that means 'you can take and edit it freely, including commecial use, aslong as you credit the original source' (meaning wowwiki) i havnt worked with wiki's as long as you have, but im assuming we will use a bot to move it (and add links to wowwiki) how difficult is it to create bots to do that?  // Loremaster Mosios (talk &middot; contr) 03:03, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * We already have the text dump, we just need an image dump from Wikia (unless they want us to crash their servers by trying to do it ourselves). -- 02:55, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * To expand on that, we're going to be importing the full page history of every edit ever made here (that's 2.4M edits and counting). That will satisfy the -BY bit of CC-BY-SA. -- k_d3 02:59, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. Just wanted to ensure we didnt overlook anything.  // Loremaster Mosios (talk &middot; contr) 03:03, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

I guess I don't follow
There's a lot of stuff at the top of this page that explains the pros and cons, but there isn't anywhere that says "Here's what we're deciding", yet I received a message saying it's all but decided. I'm just a casual editor, so maybe the change doesn't matter much either way. Mckaysalisbury (talk) 05:00, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I hear, its been decided, and the move will happen on a specific (already set) date. I do believe they're making arrangements now to inform the other fansites, and make up a press release for it.   And still, of course, waiting on the image dump. Until the image dump happens, we can't leave - unless they want us to crash their servers by running a crawling bot to get all the images. *shrug* Resa1983 (talk) 13:10, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding "core" editors
Is there a way to find out what percentage of edits -- say, in the last 3 months -- is done by "core" editors who would transition to the new wiki? I think the move should NOT be done if this is less than 50%. Moving will be expensive and require a lot of energy. No sence even attempting it if the new site will not even be prepared to "take off". When considering edit percentages, factor in that some of your core editors will possibly edit LESS in the long run due to the burnout of having to maintain such a complex undertaking.

I am a small editor personally. I've maintained a little piece of WoWWiki since 2008 -- namely alchemy recipes -- and I will support you with continuing edits and possibly tiny donations if you do leave Wikia. However, until it becomes apparent that the "new" site is more comprehensive, accurate and well known to the community, I probably won't hesitate to also make small edits and improvements to the Wikia half of the split as well.

On the flip side, if Wikia does not realize that the best way to make profits is to provide the customer/user the best product possible, then so be it. It's Wikia's loss, and rightfully so, if they let corporate greed get in the way of delivering the right product. Ads and revenue generation is important. Generating the Wikia brand and hilighting other projects is important. But if they feel the need to chew up half the screen to do it, then Wikia has lost sight of how to do this while making the customer happy. I kind of hope the "new" WoWWiki, if it is attempted, is successful. Good luck! (But of course, best case signario is Wikia announces that they will delay the skin by a few weeks and take the time to reduce wasted space a bit, and then we don't really need to leave).ddcorkum (talk) 13:20, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * First off, to get it out of the way, it'll be a long time before either is "more comprehensive". Both still start on a level playing field. You're perfectly welcome to edit both, and I don't think anyone would dream of attempting to prevent you from doing so.
 * Now, until you give an exact definition of "core editors" - e.g. include numbers or some such - we cannot answer this.
 * It is possible to get the edit count of a user; so this could be done for all contributors who match your definiton of "core editor" and then a little more math would divulge the percentage for you. I think this is likely what your thinking will lead to, and personally I don't have the time or inclination to bother doing this.
 * Lastly, you claimed it would take a lot of money to set up the new site, it will in fact almost certainly be free. A_F_K_sig_2.jpg A F K When Needed 13:56, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * The move is happening no matter what - Wikia's new forced skin is crap, they're removing good features, and the content area is being encroached for MORE ads (as if there weren't enough already). I personally have had headaches every single day because of the new skin causing eye strain (causing the headaches). I hate this skin, and Wikia managers who thought this was a good idea need to be slapped upside the head, and have their heads examined.
 * I don't believe WE are picking up any of the costs for the move - I do believe our new host is bearing the costs, just to have us there - as they're doing for all the other gaming wikis they're grabbing up due to wikia's stupidity. From what I've heard from my contact there, they're all excited and can't wait for us to join them! Resa1983 (talk) 14:23, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Re, definition of "core editors". This is a good question.  Two editors have used the label "core editors" in the discussions above (Oct 6th and Oct 8th, I believe).  I think what I'm really asking is "what is a core editor, and how much editing is done by them".  Ie, are core editors the 10 people doing a quarter of all the edits by themselves?  Is it a hundred people?  Is it just 3?   I honestly don't know, and I would just like some kind of an objective number so that I could offer some meaningful input.   I guess you could remove the words "core editors" and just stick with "how many edits per day happen today, and how many edits per day will happen tomorrow".  Obviously if you know a list of x people who plan to transition, and you know what portion of the daily editing these x people do, then its easy to provide this figure.  If these x people include your "top ten" contributers, then obviously that helps push the number up quite a bit! Perhaps this is what people think of by the term "core editors"? ddcorkum (talk) 14:30, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I think I'm inclined to change my mind. I just looked at "Alchemy_recipes" and in the new skin it is ugly.  Firtly, the page is much too narrow to display the tables of recipes neatly.  I wouldn't have bothered to get a wide-screen monitor if I knew the future of the internet is hard-coded narrow pages with wide side borders.  Second, I notice the Ajax features to load the tables on demand are now removed.  Not a problem if we just need to do a quick fix to make the script work again... but it is a further downside if this feature is truly gone.  I'm hoping that we'll be able to continue taking advantage of this feature on the "new WowWiki" because it really helps to clean things up.  ddcorkum (talk) 14:50, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * The Javascript tooltips and tables are gone for good in the new skin. Wikia has basically made them impossible to maintain. --Sky (t · c) 14:58, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. That's a shame really.  Tooltips are, frankly, a natural thing to have on a World of Warcraft Wiki (or any WoW fansite, for that matter).  It is deeply ingrained in the user community because of our dependence on tooltips in-game (not to mention their usefulness and practicality to not need to open a new page).  I do hope the new wowwiki will be able to support this functionality. ddcorkum (talk) 15:06, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's one of the benefits of moving with us. ;) --Sky (t · c) 15:16, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not a "core" editor. I've been editing technical content (APIs for writing addons, etc) since 2006, but have not made very many edits to the rest of the site.  I have no interest in Wikia's social features or other nonoptional crap.  I have no interest in using any skin other than "the old wowwiki" skin.  I've already had to abandon pages here due to vandalism, because there's no way of getting answers *back* from whatever administration runs it.  The day we're forced to use some advert-heavy skin and features is the day I never come to Wikia again.  farmbuyer (talk) 22:14, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made several contributions to the API pages myself, I also maintain the Macro Commands page (the one that was generated from the in-game environment). I am willing to continue to maintain this page if the Wiki is moved.  I got involved due in WoWwiki due to it was really the best place to find an API reference, and I think most addon authors come here for reference.  If you move the wiki to another host, the development community is sure to follow. --DrDoom (talk) 00:12, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Just another voice of support
I support a move. As an editor/owner of a text/lore/information "wiki" myself, I find the new skin is highly inappropriate for a text-content database of any kind. I find it incredible that designers do not realize text just becomes mangled when you squeeze fixed width that narrow. Of course best if you can stay (to preserve the domain name) but the discussions here seem to find it unlikely. Sic Semper Tyrannis and all that. I'll help redirecting traffic to the new site in all ways I can. Good luck and see you on the other side :) Asherett (talk) 14:11, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

Massive undertaking
Not sure how extensive WoWWiki is, but over at The Vault we've had this same debate, and decided that it's far too massive an undertaking to move to another host. That and the loss of the website name that has defined the Vault for over half a decade - and surely WoWWiki is of a similar vintage - means that to move would cause undue confusion.

Yes, the new skin sucks. Yes, Wikia staff are foolish to force this change. But the sad truth is that their biggest wikis are going to stay because it's too much work to move. Kris talk 14:38, October 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree that it's too much work to move. It's as simple as setting up a new database, new domain, grabbing a dump of the text, asking Wikia for an image dump, and then importing all that to the new database. Really, moving is the easy part. :) --Sky (t · c) 14:42, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

Style Content Technology
Sorry if I am not adding anything new here. Too Long, won't read? Keep the Content, pick the right Host and Software, the rest will follow.

Default Skin could use tweaks sure, but maybe a working alternative could be created (if current / monaco breaks) that is acceptable to many. Individuals can change the skin they use in preferences. Using mediawiki, joomla, wordpress, flex, etc. designers have many option for layout and features. Making something new to replace something old/existing is a chore and leads to all kinds of multiple-cooks issues, but often yields a better result. I did not always enjoy all of the current layout, but I accepted it because well it was being used. Now that a change is being forced, it may be more time efficient to build something new than try to fix or hold on to what is and will be broken. The right layout enhances the site, but many people can have different opinions on the 'right layout', and still use the site with a less-than-right layout.

My primary concern would be to preserve in whole the contributed content and information, which is the real value added to wow wiki by the users so far. Transclusion, import (of pages and/or templates), links all can fill some of these. Lore, history, (maybe even user pages and silly category), these need to live on. On the other side, game mechanics, talents, spells, quests, and such are going through so many changes by 4.0.3 that it may be worthwhile to take the page name, its templates, and start filling them in from scratch to reduce outdated and/or wrong info. The right content and right level of completeness are crucial; the site will have no worth without content.

The URL for the site is important, but picking one that is similar to the existing is only helpful during a transition phase. Once a site is up and running, search engines and bookmarks/favorites will allow old and new users to find the site, even if it gets named fudge-ripple. Brand awareness and marketing can make even a nonsense URL usable. Choice of a domain or subdomain name will not break the site.

The underlying software is mediawiki and a few dozen addons perhaps? Keeping this software reduces learning time for admin and contributors, and improves odds of importing and re-using pages and templates. Learning something new is not impossible, just time consuming. However, If ALL the current content had to stay and the new site was starting completely from zero, it may be worthwhile to experiment. Try to build a specific sub-set of desired site functionality in 3 platforms for comparison. Especially if there were other benefits in performance, features, expandability, and such. Keeping mediawiki in the immediate term for cross wiki compatibility and reduced learning time will help the site continue.

Hosting options are generally not seen by the end users or text contributors. However they can impact the user experience. They can definitely lead to the site closing permanently. This is where the cost comes in too; if you do not enjoy seeing advertisements, then reducing cost is key. Exacting measures of daily and monthly page hits, page kilobytes downloaded/uploaded, image kilobytes download/uploaded, will be important when forecasting costs and comparing host packages. Subscribing for the right amount, without paying for unused excess capacity nor being hit with constant overage charges.

Yourbuddybill (talk) 15:17, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

Wikia committing suicide?
My opinion was asked, and although I'm late and most have already been said, there are a few things that ponders me a bit.

First of all, I find it odd that wikia is willing to impose a skin that will reduce user experience while adding more ads, for the sake of making more money. If their revenue is based on page visits, isn't ruining Wikia the same as doing the opposite of making money? I read the other posts in this forum (now my brain is tired, phewaah) and as it seems this skin also causes other Wikia-wikis to consider leaving, I'd say Wikia is outright committing suicide. I understand that they pay little respect to their users, but this will also affect their money. The fact that something as big as Wowwiki is planning to leave them should (logically) force them to reconsider their plan. Haven't Wikia thought anything about this?

Second, there is the money required to become independent... being pessimistic like most other, I have little faith in contributions to keep Wowwiki alive. In the worst case, I fear that Wowwiki might become so ads-dependent that it one day resembles what it would have looked like if it had stayed in Wikia. It'd be a loss either way (if it happened), but would Wowwiki have any chance of returning to Wikia later, if the need would arise?

Third, I think a good hosting name of any new Wowwiki would be "wrathofdeathfrostshomepage.com"! WrathOfDeathfrost (talk) 17:57, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikia is unwilling to bend on the skin because according to them they have other features coming down which make using the new skin mandatory. We've discussed this with them - they are willing to budge a little on the Terms of Use, but nothing on the skin, which is the main problem most of us have.  If we leave, it will be a fork, which means starting out the same content will be on both places, but as we grow apart it will be harder to just "come back", which won't happen anyway. -- 18:03, October 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * Pcj: what I said was that I was happy to bring any specifics to the rest of the office (and that I had already done so in some cases).
 * WrathOfDeathfrost: You are right that we need both editors and readers to make this service work. I think where the disagreement is, is that we don't agree that this skin will reduce the user experience (and, at the moment, there are not more ads either -- the change is in the positioning of the ads.  Logged in users continue to only see two ads on the main page.) -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 19:35, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * It will reduce my user experience - to zero. I can't stand the new skin, which means I will no longer be able to stand Wikia.  'Any of it.  I'll whitelist the new WoW-wiki in my adblocker, and even consider donating money here and there.  But stay with Wikia?
 * Not while Oasis is mandatory. --PaxArcana (talk) 03:13, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

A overly long comment from Wikia
I popped on to IRC again today to talk to pcj, kd3 and others... but wanted to leave a message here too. I know that some of you are considering moving away from Wikia. It's always sad to see any wiki contributors move on, especially ones who have made this one of the finest wikis around. For those that stay on WoWWiki, I want to reassure you that this wiki will remain in place and available to you just as before.

Some updates on the skin. This is very much an ongoing process, and one of the key elements is studying the effect of the changes in practice. It's important for us to know that some of you think “image attribution sucks”, but it's also important for us to know that x-thousand people have clicked on the links and so viewed user pages and discovered that there is a community beyond the articles.

We’ll are having many discussions about how the changes are working, and we’re still generating ideas about issues brought up in the feedback. For example, we are considering the idea of space in the sidebar for an infobox and we’re talking about how to deal with extra-large images and tables. Also, we’ll be adjusting the text color logic to increase readability, reducing the size of the spotlights, and adding in a magic word for admins to use to exclude photos from the latest photos module.

The main thing I want you to know is that nothing is totally set in stone -- we have lots of tracking and analysis ahead of us. Some aspects may change in the next month, others over time. There are constant discussions about this and as we get more feedback and usage stats we’ll keep reviewing our decisions.

If you have any questions or concerns, I’ll be on IRC later today. Or you can leave a message here or on my talk page of course. Thanks for reading -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 19:35, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussions aren't results. We have a plan in motion to eliminate all of the Wikia hassles - by moving to another server.  Sorry, but no dice. -- 19:44, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I find it hilarious that we all got globally site-wide messaged about the new skin just now. Funny that we can't do that locally in the new look... -- k_d3 20:37, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you going to move the bar to the left, the right gives me headaches in this wiki i will move with the community, however i hoped you would at least change so we don't get headaches when i visit those that didn't leave--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:43, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I see a lot of corporate vaportalk regarding the importance of our opinions, but the fact is that the complaints at the top of this page are still ignored. Lots of Wikia banners, content and ads that we don't control, with the useful stuff shoved to the bottom of the page.  Loading a page, searching for content, trying to get anything actually DONE is slower than balls.  I have no interest in turning this into a facebook site.  I come here for technical information, not twitter blogs.  farmbuyer (talk) 22:00, October 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * Sannse, if you truly valued this wiki so much, if you were truly as aware of it' contributions to Wikia's own success ... you'd LISTEN TO WHAT WE ARE SAYING. The fact that you're hell-bent on doing what you want, and never mind the concerns of this wiki, show that your words are emptier than the wind, and bear as little true meaning.  Wherever this wiki goes, I will follow, without hesitation.--PaxArcana (talk) 02:45, October 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * From what I can see from Sannse/Wikia they are just trying to convince you to use the new skin. There are discussions yes, but definitely nothing will change to their plans. -- Ketho (talk) 09:51, October 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * I can vouch that is not the case: certainly we can't satisfy every request, but a lot of stuff is still being worked on and being discussed. For example, kd3, the lack of local messaging is a bug that is being fixed - when the community message is edited, it is intended to notify people.
 * I am not sure why anyone would want the sidebar on the left - it's not used for navigation - the content is on the left. The navigation is now above the content (and on the toolbar).
 * There are no more ads than usual, either - and the new skin also allows us to position them in locations that interfere far less with the content.
 * I am pushing to get the top height reduced - currently we have some wasted space because of the logo area height.
 * I know there are some pages that are affected by the reduced page width (assuming you're on a big monitor) - but it's not drastic. The examples I've seen are not unfixable, and designing for large monitor widths isn't a good idea in the first place. We are, however, looking at how we can improve the situation on our side - indeed, we were discussing it last night.
 * I am hearing people talking about the 'huge' number of bugs Wikia is supposedly not going to fix: that is categorically untrue. Many of our developers are still hard at work on the skin, and they're not stopping any time soon. 16:15, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you're still defending the new skin when it's quite apparent we don't want it. We don't want "fixes" to it, we just don't want the new skin. -- 16:22, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Good work after the fact, but who want it? Maybe it was better to do so - development, test, trial, final? --Strizh (t) 16:26, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, what's the word on the updated/final data dumps? -- k_d3 16:31, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know, sorry - it's out of my hands (but question passed on). pcj, I defend it because I actually like it (which is not the same as saying it's perfect). 17:14, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * And the same here. I know it can sound as though I am saying that because I work for Wikia, but I truly believe in what we are doing -- making a better skin and interface for all users here and on other sites on Wikia.  And a skin that will be better for the future users of this wiki too.  That's the process that we are working on.  And it is a process -- I've been in various meetings today (and on past days) watching as the team working on this consider every aspect of the design, the feedback, and the information they are gathering from the actual use of the skin.  That last aspect is vital, and something that will continue over the coming months.  For example: we know there is an issue with large tables and the team is working right now on ideas on how to resolve that.  That work should be complete soon and I ask all of you to hold on a little longer to see what they come up with. -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 22:19, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Kevin Ross from Digg.com called and wants to tell you about the time he changed his site, and what the users did. Eluna ( T / C / e ) 22:12, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sannse, Kirkburn ... how is "removing what the users want, and have stated is an abolute requirement" ... in any way an improvement ...? Every company that has failed or (as in Wikia's case) 'refused' to listen to it's patrons?  Failed.  All of them.  No exceptions.  So ... that's Wikia's goal, then?  Failure?  IF so ... good job, keep it up, you're heading in the right direction! --PaxArcana (talk) 14:02, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

<--unindent

Right side bar to the left, gives me headaches to the right--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:22, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * So, why is this all happening after the fact and not during the beta process? Issues that were brought up repeatedly during beta are only now just getting addressed... I don't recall signing up to being guinea pigs on the production site...
 * I don't really have anything else to say at this point other than "Where's our text/image dumps?" -- k_d3 22:25, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * What he said ^. Sannse, the biggest sign to us that you are ignoring our comments and trying to pacify us for the sake of corporate stability is that you keep promising "this will be looked at, things are still changing, nothing is set in stone, bear with us", yet you are making this "work in progress" the default in a few days. You're rushing this forward even when, by your own admission, there's a lot of work to be done. This is why you appear hell bent on implementing these changes regardless of the cost, and it is why we are scrambling to get out of the way before it's too late.Jerodast (talk) 09:52, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

My home
My home is the only thing that i feel sad to let go, will you eventually put it back or a different similar thing?--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:16, October 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * Whether we leave or stay, 'MyHome' is dead. The new wikia skin does NOT include MyHome. here is a quote from their introduction page - "We have identified some features on Wikia that are underutilized across the site, and so will not become a part of the new look." Just below this sentence is "Myhome has become the Wiki Activity". To answer your question - for now, please assume that our new home WONT include MyHome, however once we have settled in, i would love to discuss it further as i can see (with afew ajustments) it being a perfect feature of wowwiki. Just dont expect the feature available at the housewarming party. And assume it will never be implemented. <span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"> // Loremaster Mosios (talk &middot; contr) 11:24, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * MyHome and WikiActivity have the same basic functionality, so nothing is being lost there -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 22:21, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sannse, What are those 'same functionality' that your talking about? the only part of 'MyHome' i personaly used is to see the activity of the pages i follow - and that IS being lost. I think you may have meant, "Special:RecentChanges and WikiActivity have the same basic functionality, so everything is being lost there". &#123;&#123;User:Mosios/sig}} (talk) 09:16, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Mosios, I misunderstood. You may want to add Special:Watchlist to your tools, that shows similar data (in a different format) -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 18:52, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

What does "moving" entail, really?
If Wikia gets to keep the domain name and all the content... what, exactly, is "moving"?

How is this different from starting a new wiki somewhere else? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by.
 * All of the same content (at the start) and a lot of the same users are going to be there. A lot of the editors are going to be there instead of here so that's why we say "moving". -- 22:41, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * My view on it is the data gets copied, the editors move and a ghost is left... In the end nobody will notice the ghost and the new site will compleatly replace it as this site will just be an old copy with out of date info on it. Zasurus (talk) 21:22, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

A question for Wikia
You're intentionally sabotaging your own system and you don't seem to care...like "it's no biggie". This is a BIG biggie. You're about to lose the dedicated admins and a large chunk of your dedicated editors on your most popular wiki for a change that not only doesn't work, but has been blasted by users everywhere. But you like it, so it's just fine.

I would like to know not only why you've decided to shoot yourselves in the foot, but why you're doing it with a smile and a shrug. --Joshmaul (talk) 05:22, October 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * I was wondering the same, though the answer from Sannse was a bit vague - it doesn't seem like Wikia is willing to admit they are doing a mistake here. Most likely they'll continue to spew semi-relevant talk about how nifty the new skin "actually" is.


 * Sannse, is the new skin really so good that Wikia is willing to sacrifice everything Joshmaul mentioned for it? WrathOfDeathfrost (talk) 11:07, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Guys, this is a loaded question that's impossible to answer. Of course we wouldn't be creating this skin if we didn't believe in it. -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 22:28, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * What really matters, is not YOU believing in the skin. What matters is your users/editors should believe in the skin. And we don't. Give us our text/image dumps so we can leave already. Resa1983 (talk) 22:32, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * What about the matter regarding the eye strain the skin is causing, making numerous users experience headaches even since the start of the beta? This has been mentioned over and over again but there has yet to be an announcement as to why this is happening and what you are going to do about it. -- 22:35, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's precisely what I meant. YOU like it, YOU believe in it. WE don't. And yet you're doing it anyway. Nothing loaded about my question - you're sabotaging your own wikis. We want to know why. --Joshmaul (talk) 03:15, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am a software developer for a international company (no names mentioned) and we replaced our in-house made system for an off the shelf system a few years ago and even though everyone (even us the developers) knew it was a bad idea it was done because one person high enough up thought it was a good idea and liked the idea of taking the credit when it worked... they where fired 2 years later after it almost took our company out but even now we have made our bed and there we must lye! The reason for the change was because someone was sold the idea that an off the shelf product could be maintained for cheaper (even though it required special developers that where rare and VERY expensive). I suspect something simalar is happening here. One or two people high enough have got it into there head they are right and this will make them more money so no mater what everyone else below them says it's going to happen and like me and my team the staff of WIKIA have goto put on the "It's all great and we love it" face or face getting the boot! ;) (Just my opinion!) Zasurus (talk) 21:17, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Wikia perspective
Some stats to give another perspective on the situation, especially to why Wikia sometimes has to take positions that can differ to those of core editors. 95% of the traffic on the wiki is from readers, not editors. We have over 1,000 editors a month on WoWWiki, and only a small number are represented here in this discussion. Already, pages on WoWWiki have been 'liked' (a new skin feature) by logged in editors 2,000+ times. Of course we still strongly respect the opinions of the core editors, but we cannot only respect your opinions.

I know several of you mainly use monobook, which is already a different skin to the ones most people see - yet Monaco is still a successful skin. Monobook will still be there, but the 'main' skin will be moving on to a new iteration (remember, it's not aimed at you alone).

How is the new skin causing eyestrain? It's basically the same theme/colour set as before. If there are tweaks to be made to the colours still, that's easy (e.g. brightening the text?). Other than the global header and fixed width (which I don't think we need to cover again), what else is causing usability problems? I've been around wikis a long time, and I really am not seeing the unfixable issues. 11:14, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * The right bar focuses the right eye to leftern most corner which is the strongest eye, it causes headaches to me and a lot of people--Ashbear160 (talk) 11:27, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, interesting - not something I've ever heard before. Do you happen to know of any links that discuss that effect? 12:38, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Kirkburn, you haven't seen anything about it because Wikia staff members (ie Sannse) have been deleting ANY post which mentions eyestrain or headaches on the community blogs. There have been several ophthalmologists from Britain who've posted that the skin has caused eyestrain to those who have dominant right eyes, and that the eyestrain could easily cause a headache.  All posts were deleted with the reason being "spam".
 * I tried reporting 2 weeks worth of headaches in #wikia, and was told by Sannse they were a figment of my imagination because of my dislike of the new skin and to deal with it (I have the IRC logs if you want them). I responded by telling her I'd been part of the beta, and had been optimistic about the skin until a few days previous (this was about a week ago), so she needed to change her line of thought. She said she'd forward my report of headaches.  I guess I know where that went... Nowhere.  Great user support. *claps*
 * For 3 weeks I tried using JUST Wikia (yes I continued to use Wikia despite 2 previous weeks of headaches, hoping I'd get used to the skin, and the strain would go away), only switching to monaco to grab an IP from a comment vandal. Headaches only got worse.  Which is pretty bad considering I hadn't had a headache in over a year.. And I hadn't had a Migraine in over 12 yrs - I woke up Friday morning with a Migraine from daily headaches.  That was the point I had enough, and switched back to Monaco/Monobook permanently.
 * I think part of the problem is staff says they're listening, but really isn't. Its QUITE clear you're not really listening to us when all reports of headaches are being deleted as spam.
 * Anyways, thats my little story as to why I detest Wikia (the skin), Wikia (the company) and Sannse, and why I now have Sannse blocked on IRC. Any other questions as to why the community wants to leave Wikia so badly? Resa1983 (talk) 13:29, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Because requested, information:

"Eye strain headaches, which are not due to any eye problem, can be avoided by following the above mentioned measures (ie stop viewing the website)"
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocular_dominance
 * http://info-med.co.uk/headaches/can-eyestrain-cause-headaches.php
 * http://www.buzzle.com/articles/eye-strain-headache.html

"Headache is the most common symptom (of eye strain). It is usually mild, located in both temples, not pounding, and often relieved by stopping the visual task."
 * http://www.medicinenet.com/eye_strain/page2.htm#symptoms


 * Out of interest, is that solely from viewing WoWWiki, or other wikis too? In terms of WoWWiki alone, I am slightly concerned about the greyness of the text, it may not be helping. I do apologise if it is giving your headaches, and I would be surprised (and disappointed) if such concerns are being actively suppressed. I will pass on your notes, thanks. 14:31, October 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been active on the Farmville wiki as I'm an admin there. Its all greens, and black text on a white background which hasn't given me any problems since I joined them back in April.  I only started getting the headaches when I started using the new skin.  I enjoy being an admin on the Farmville wiki (I hear you all snickering, shush you), however with this skin change I've already informed the bureaucrat that I would be leaving wikia when wowwiki leaves.  I don't know whether its active suppression, or just deleting any posts they think is total bs (at this point, I really don't care), but the least they could do is look into the reports of eyestrain/headaches before just deleting all of the posts.  Deleting posts out of hand is just guaranteed to piss off what userbase you have left. Resa1983 (talk) 14:49, October 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Can't speak for the central blog, though I do have an alternative thought - could it be anything to do with the font at all? I believe we've made some tweaks there compared to Monaco. I've not ever played Farmville myself, personally - I don't trust myself around games like that :) 16:29, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * The font? Arial/Helvetica is not known to cause eye strain. :P -- 16:35, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * How it's presented may have changed (text might be slightly smaller, for example). 17:20, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * i'm pretty sure it not the font, It hurts when i stare at prolonged times to the left of the screen, and like Reesa said it seems the experts agree--Ashbear160 (talk) 16:46, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, it's being investigated.
 * Edit: we're specifically looking at increasing the contrast and improving font sizes. (I just made a few local tweaks where the sizes had gone wonky, but that's not the extent of it). I know it's not the same as moving the sidebar location, but it may be the help needed. 17:20, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * And what's the word on the data dump investigation? -- k_d3 17:24, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Prodded again. I believe there should be some news today. 17:36, October 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I have been reading the posts about eyestrain with great concern, unfortunately I am having trouble understanding the exact cause. I read the article on Ocular Dominance but it doesnt' mention anything in there about web layouts. I thought perhaps it was due to the text color (which each community has control over) but it seems you are describing more the layout. Can you elaborate a bit more which exact parts of the layout are causing the eye strain? Is is having the Content on the left?  navigation across the top? Wiki Activity and Photos Module appearing on the right? Can you explain what specific activities you are doing when you get the headaches? Reading articles? Editing pages? Many many large content sites on the internet follow this exact layout Do any of the following sites also give you eye-strain?  IGN, IMBD, Curse, NY Times, about.com, Engadget. Obviously the LAST thing we want is for people to get headaches from reading content on Wikia so I am trying to understand this better angies (talk) 17:47, October 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * (angies posted essentially the same questions I had.) What are you calling the "right bar" that's giving you the headaches? I thought initially you meant a 3rd column, to the right of the main content, but I don't see that in most pages. (I just switched to the "New Wikia Skin" to see if I can see what you're talking about.) I was googling around to see if I could find an explanation for a dominant eye issue and found http://www.hemianopsia.net/. I don't know if that helps at all. Aside from wikis are there any other websites of any kind that cause the same kind of symptoms? -- ScratchMonkey (talk) 17:50, October 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * To me it seems looking at the leftern most corner that gives me the headaches and i don't usually visit those websites, i checked a article at IGN and the article didn't give me a headache But in this case they seemed to have added images to the left and kept text in the middle of the screen even if it was just very compacted--Ashbear160 (talk) 17:57, October 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure i never had that but i do wear glasses...--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:14, October 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * We've asked the techs to tweak the size and line spacing set for the new look font. That should increase readability and help if anyone is finding they are squinting at the text.  It looks like this will be live by the middle of next week, so please let us know how it feels then  -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 23:14, October 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Note, we're bringing some of these forward - the text colour tweak should already be live, to improve the contrast. 19:17, October 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * More changes should be live, this time related to text size. 12:04, October 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Claiming the new skin is better for readers is not believable. It's clearly aimed at being better for advertisers, and better for being "social", where by social you are hoping the site will be more "sticky", encouraging people to use it more often and more repeatedly.  This wiki is about... being a wiki, having information.  That's what *reading* is about, and the old pre-monaco skin was superior than monaco, and this new skin is even worse.  I am not an wowiki editor, other than fixing minor errors when reading.  I am a reader primarily, and can say decisively that these changes will make reading much less pleasant, and will encourage me to leave pages decorated as these will be. JoshuaRodman (talk) 00:11, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Kirkburn, about your initial response in this section, thank you for that clear and prompt explanation of Wikia's motivations. However, the best analogy that I can can come up with to illustrate how I feel is to compare the new skin to if McDonald's replaced their deep-fryers with a pile of trays and menus (and then hid the pile) because that is what a vast majority of the people who enter the restaurant deal with, and yet still expected a steady supply of burgers.-- 21:00, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Illegal, surely...
I'm not saying it's true, as I don't know for certain. But I couldn't care less if the comment started off with "the following message is spam" - if any Wikia staff member deleted feedback claiming that Wikia was responsible for health issues, they should be fired on the spot, no questions asked.

That's incompetence, professional inadequacy, likely illegal, and should be more than enough to earn someone a one-way ticket out of the company. Kirkburn, Sannse, I know you're looking at this page. Please respond informing us of the steps taken to ensure Wikia never again dismiss the possibility they could be damaging someone's health, or that it has been verified the above claim is false. A F K When Needed 15:47, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not true. The only comments we have removed have been spam, abuse, or vandalism.  The comments about eye strain were passed on to the team working on the skin, and they have changed the text size, colour and spacing in response to that. There's nothing about the layout that is particularly different from many other sites, so it seems likely that an increase in text readablity is the solution. -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 19:02, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Move Inevitable, Safe to Edit?
Given that the move is inevitable at this point, are we safe to continue editing the Wiki, or should we wait for the move and edit then? (Will any changes made now be moved to the new site?) &hearts; <font color="#FF3399">sunsmoon  (<font color="#ff99cc">talk  & <font color="#ff99cc">cont ) 08:25, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think so the only thing that won't come seems to be the images that are posted after they get the image dump, also it seems that most edits are being done by gourra now--Ashbear160 (talk) 10:04, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * We are trying to make the articles dump as accurate and recent as possible. Any eventual edits/revisions that haven't been transferred will be done by a bot. -- 11:04, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

Accounts
i assume the accounts will transfer and we don't have to make new accounts, right? probably not but will userpags transfer?--Ashbear160 (talk) 10:20, October 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * All articles including user pages will be transferred to the new site. You will likely have to register again, though. -- 11:03, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * So the edit clubs will be removed right?--Ashbear160 (talk) 11:04, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * The revisions are still counted, so no. -- 11:11, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * But the contributions won't? which is the counter for the edit clubs?--Ashbear160 (talk) 11:28, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Revisions = edits = contributions. -- 11:55, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * New accounts can be merged/associated with past edits. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 17:00, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

What is happening? And when?
I know that there has been a lot of talk on this page in the last few weeks, and I have been trying to follow everything as closely as I can. Whilst it is great to see that everyone is really passionate about this, and most people are supporting the move (as am I), I think that we need to have a space on this page that is not full of opinion, but full of fact. So what I’m thinking is that we need a place on this page where all the facts and timeframes can be outlined without opinion getting in the way. What exactly is going to happen next, and when? Jeffajaffa (talk) 17:48, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * We do have things rolling, however Wikia's slowness in getting an image dump as well as the latest WoW patch is kind of slowing us down a bit. We're on track to be switched over before BlizzCon (and before the skin is switched on for anons), though.  More information will be available once we get past the above problems. -- 17:55, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * what if they refuse to give you a image dump?or they are already giving but are taking time to do it?--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:56, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * We have ways of getting the images ourselves, but it would be easier/faster for them to do it. -- 19:59, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Easier for both parties, actually (it would be to our mutual benefit for them to get the images). Faster for us. --Sky (t · c) 20:31, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, from Wikia's perspective it would make more sence (if they strongly believe in their new skin) to drag it out until the skin is implemented if they can.  They might be hoping that once people see the new skin they will think "oh, its not too bad" and that this would die out.  If there is a way to do the image dump in parts, or at a forcebly slower pace (so that it doesn't interrupt the site's operation), perhaps you should start now so that you are less dependent on Wikia being of assistance. ddcorkum (talk) 02:01, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * We've already started getting the images, and I'm pretty sure we have all of them now, actually. --Sky (t · c) 02:19, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

My $0.02
I was invited by one of the core editors to give my opinion on the matter. Personally, I like the way WoWWiki is now, but my concern is whether the quality of the site will remain the same when the changes indicated occur. I have seen some of the other Wikia sites, and to say the least the quality can vary greatly, especially where the quality of the skin and the posters themsevles are concerned. I used to post on Wowhead, but found this site to be overall more useful as that it does not require digging through a lot of posts (some of which are outdated) to get information that I need. I will defer to the judgement of those who have used this site much linger than I have (and are presumably more technically proficient than I am, not that that would be hard to do) and follow whichever direction they wish to go, which I assume will be the one that keeps WoWWiki the top-notch site that it is now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by.
 * Thank you for your comments. As soon as Wikia plays ball with some of the data dumps we requested we plan to set up shop at our new host in a few days. -- k_d3 02:49, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Future Host
It seems the admin have some sort of idea of where the site is going. I understand the thought of not-saying-too-much both until its confirmed and because this is all public. However, I just want to confirm that the site is not going to that new shoutwiki that all those little small wikias are leaving to. Its small and horrible and already failing and having server issues just dealing with ten wikis that have a hundred or so pages a piece. HooperBandP (talk) 14:59, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, not going to ShoutWiki or any of the free wiki hosting services. -- 15:01, October 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I may have a solution. My freind, Mizu, is moving my and his home wikias to a much safer place, without errors and such, and he told me that we won't abondon our affiliates...Other wikis, such as you. I love this place and it deserves good ground, so that's why I mention this to you.--Leo And his beloved lynx, Firestorm 17:53, October 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * So, what will happen now? What will be the future host? --Gruntijackal, the impending demise draws near 19:10, October 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * The new host is setting up the new site now - pcj did his usual magic, and shaved 3-4 days off converting the data so its easier to be uploaded to the new site. It'll be 'rough around the edges', but should be operational by the weekend - it may be locked to just admins editing, til they get everything fixed up properly.  They're really pushing for the new site up for all before wikia changes it over so anons see the new skin on the 20th. Resa1983 (talk) 19:25, October 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Just toss me the url and I'll only be on wikia for the starcraft wiki anymore. Oakpack4 (talk) 21:24, October 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * How are you going to get the new URL out to the people? From what I've been reading, I would not be surprised if Wikia removed any link to the new site from this one. Hell, they've probably got people looking at every single page of this site, just waiting for that link to go up...Jeffajaffa (talk) 22:49, October 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * WoWWiki doesn't exist in a vacuum. There'll be a press release going to all of the fansites as soon as we're ready to go. -- k_d3 22:46, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikia also didn't do that when the Transformers wiki moved. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 22:51, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

A couple of immutables
I've been off concentrating on the game the last couple weeks, and haven't been nearly as busy as I usually am here. So I'm coming into this late. I have no personal axe to grind against Wikia. But if a large part of the editors leave for another wiki, I would leave as well.

The issue about moving that looms largest for me is "how are we going to fund it"? Not the initial move funding. That's a one-time cost. I presume we could hold a bake sale equivalent and get enough money to fund the move. Continuing funding, to maintain infrastructure - hosting, equipment, bandwidth, etc. Pay for someone to maintain site ownership: domain name registration, for instance.

And I'd really, really, really like to see the plans for funding and maintenance made before we burn any bridges. Even if we decide that we can live with wikia, or if wikia decides that it has to handle us differently, this is a good thing to explore.

The second issue I have is around the thought "wikia would never let go of the wowwiki.com domain name". Has anyone asked them directly, "name a price to give (us) the name"? Now, that price may have more digits than we can possibly consider, especially if Wikia is feeling cheesed at us. But there's a difference between "never, not at any price" and "give us a sparklepony". (Note... Wowwiki might have to incorporate as a non-profit, and all THAT entails, for them to even be able to give us the name. Chew on that thought for a while.) --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:42, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * We ran the numbers and came to the conclusion that self-hosting just isn't feasible for the kind of traffic we push. No, we're not going to shoutwiki or any other "free" wikifarm. As soon as the import gets done I'll be making a pretty major announcement about what's going to happen (hopefully in the next day or two).
 * Also, wowwiki.com is "not for sale" in the words of Sannse. -- k_d3 20:46, October 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * self-hosting just isn't feasible - I expected such; thus my concern. I remember the time before we were hosted by wikia....   So these discussions have already been ongoing.  I don't (can't) have an IRC client available to me, but any way I can listen in?  not for sale - While I expected as much, it's ... disappointing.  --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:04, October 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Most of the discussion not on this page has been on IRC or via email. I can point you to the chat logs, however you'll need to dig a bit out of the past couple of weeks. --Sky (t · c) 22:26, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Go for it
I'm in favor of you moving if the new place gets BLACK LETTERS on WHITE BACKGROUND - instead of this current terrible look (and no, you can't change theme, because most pages are hardcoded and looks bad in other themes). --Crash (talk) 21:30, October 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Odd... I prefer WHITE letters on a BLACK background. Most pages should be using CSS to set colors for things.  Would you point out a couple particular examples that don't work for you, and what your current theme is, so we can make changes that are appropriate?  Are the colors horrid only when you're logged out, or when you are logged in as well?  --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:38, October 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I enjoy a gray-ish dark text on an white background, or a gray-ish light text on a black background. Black on white or white on black has to much contrast. Eluna ( T / C / e ) 21:54, October 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Crash, I remember this being an issue for you way-back-when. You can choose to login and switch the skin as you please; we will definitely have a black on white skin available (possibly 2!). The default skin will likely remain this light grey/white on grey that we have currently. --Sky (t · c) 22:24, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh good. I've been running GameWikis on Monobook since the shift, partly to kill the ads and partly (in WoWWiki's case) because I despise that white on grey thing. Color-wise, GuildWiki has always looked far better to me. Simple, but better. Qing Guang (talk) 20:37, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

To whom it may concern (ed: Sannse)
Where are the dumps? Seriously, how stuck up can you guys actually get? If you truly feel that your new skin and terms etc. are the way to go, and that you actually think you are so damn right about this. Then why not just give them what they are asking for? Does it actually hurt you guys? You still have the domain, you still have the actual Wiki, what are you afraid of? Let your decisions stand on it's own feet. <span style="background-color: #480000; text-align:left;border-top: 2px dashed #ef4747;border-bottom:2px dashed #ef4747;padding:1px 5px 1px 5px; font-family:Verdana; font-size:10px;"> Elüna  talk  &middot;  contr     22:26, October 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Bravo! Well said, that man! Or are you scared Wikia? Scared of what we will become? Scared that without us, you will wither and die? It seems clear to me that you want WoWWiki, but you don't want us! So you're doing everything you can to get rid of the people who make this site so great! Well, when the new site is bigger and better than this site has ever been, you will only have yourselves to blame! [insert manicle, insane laughter here] Jeffajaffa (talk) 22:45, October 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Jeffajaffa, what was your goal there? I don't know of any purpose served by trying to taunt Wikia.  --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:19, October 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sorry about that, I guess that I did get slightly carried away by that. Although I feel that the basis of what I said stands. It does feel that every time we have tried to do something constructive for the site, Wikia stand in our way. We don't like the new skin, and so we are doing the decent thing and trying to walk away with the minimum of fuss. Jeffajaffa (talk) 23:03, October 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Much of the content here just doesn't fit the "paragraph of text" format. If the new skin limits our ability to display data in the manner in which we desire it to be displayed, why should we be forced to accept this?  Wikis are and should be for and by the users, and as such should be a user-driven community.  I understand your desire to move in a new direction, your need for ads to pay for services, and the desire to make it easier to find other wikis, but I don't see why it is not more desirable to be flexible and have a wider appeal.  I don't think its a good idea for ANY company to alienate their constituents. --DrDoom (talk) 00:21, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

I should have an update on the image dumps today (the text dumps haven't been a problem). Sorry for the delay, there have been some complications that we are looking in to (yeah, I know that's vague, I can't help that right now >_< )

DrDoom: we know tabular data is an issue -- there's work going on right now to find solutions for that -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 15:16, October 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that Wikia is looking into the issues affecting the users. I feel that positive feedback on any level speaks much louder than flat "no" responses.  In the end, I don't think anyone really wants to leave here.  I think we'd rather have some resolution in a way that both users and developers can agree on, and I think that maintaining flexibility of display elements is a very high priority for most people who choose to use wikis as a vehicle to facilitate their organizational needs. --DrDoom (talk) 20:22, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

OK, so this is a message that I expect to cause some shouting.

You are going to need to use other means to copy the images from this wiki to yours. We aren't able to give you an image dump.

The problem is, that while the text is under a free license, the images aren't. We can host them as user-uploaded content, as long as we abide by the DMCA rules. We have "safe harbour" as long as we act on any valid DMCA takedown notices sent by the copyright holders.

However, that doesn't apply to us providing a full image download like this. That's not us displaying user-uploaded images, that's us supplying copyrighted files.

The delay has been for me to investigate this properly and get the opinion of those who understand this in much more depth than I do. The embarrassment is that we initially believed we could provide this. We wanted to be sure of our ground before we said anything to you all, but the final advice has reached us: don’t do this. -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 05:54, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * And when the move is complete, you're just going to have to go in and [b]delete[/b] the majority of them - because I am fairly confident that the permission to USE them, will go with the organisation and individuals said permission was given to, in the first place. Especially when your obstructionist tactics are brought to said copyright-owner's attention.
 * Way to shoot yourselves in the foot. 'Again.' --PaxArcana (talk) 13:55, October 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * You can hide behind the legal mumbo-jumbo if you desire; however, they will get them either way. — EGingell (T|C|F) Treader of Cenarion Circle 07:15, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * In all your pleas for us not to leave, it's stuff like this that makes it more desirable to do so. You can't win here, I'm afraid. --Joshmaul (talk) 09:37, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the images are cake. We already have them. -- 12:09, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * pcj: we know that of course. It's obvious that this doesn't make a practical difference, other than in increasing your annoyance with us.  So I'm sure you understand that we wouldn't have said this if it wasn't a genuine legal issue.  Obviously the "PR" thing to do would have been to give you the images, knowing that you had full access to them anyway, but... we got told "no".  -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 19:15, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, how is this a legal problem? You don't own the content, it's released under CC-BY-SA, it's not like giving us the resources has anything to do with anything remotely legal. Stealing, damage control, lies, deceit are words better used to describe this whole fiasco of a PR disaster that you guys have on your hands. HAND. OVER. THE. RESOURCES. NOW! Thanks. <span style="background-color: #480000; text-align:left;border-top: 2px dashed #ef4747;border-bottom:2px dashed #ef4747;padding:1px 5px 1px 5px; font-family:Verdana; font-size:10px;"> Elüna  talk  &middot;  contr     19:46, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * People, it accomplishes absolutely nothing to point fingers and get heated up in this. If you want to discuss the validity of Sannse's legal issue by providing evidence to the contrary, that's one thing.  Simply calling Sannse a liar and deceitful is not even remotely productive.  Frankly, if you've nothing nice to say, say nothing at all.  Just because you don't believe Wikia is the best location for WoWWiki (to which I'd agree with you), it doesn't mean you should be mean to its staff.   And to those who are leading this split, you need to be saying this, not me.  Show some leadership, and demonstrate that it is possible to do a split in a peaceful, orderly fassion with minimal hard feelings.  It would be best for both versions of WoWWiki.  Supporters on both sides of the fence should not wish ill of the other.  There's no reason to think the Internet isn't big enough for two. ddcorkum (talk) 22:45, October 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Leadership is actually really busy dealing with the move & move-related stuff (press-release, talking/planning with blizz, etc) right now. They're pushing hard to be up ASAP, and the wiki's still on track to be up & running before Blizzcon.
 * As to the images: what Wikia is neglecting to think about, is that the images are licensed to an official WoW fansite, and NOT explicitly licensed to wowwiki.com. Once the community leaves, WoWWiki loses fansite status; A fansite doesn't exist without its community, and the people who applied to be an official fansite.
 * With the connections the admin (and other regular users like myself) have at Blizz, theres no reason the new Wiki won't gain fansite status, replacing Wikia's version. Resa1983 (talk) 00:36, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly what I pointed out a while earlier: the permission to use those images was given to "us", and not to Wikia. When we leave, the permission goes with us. --PaxArcana (talk) 04:24, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

Late to the party...
Thoughts:
 * Any new domain name must be short, catchy, unique, and intuitive. Sadly, "wowwiki" embodies those better than anything I can come up with.  wowwiki.net would never work-everyone would type "wowwiki" and come to ".com".
 * The anarchist in me rebels against being force-fed anything by Upper Management, especially when it seems to be ill-advised. But the doomsayer in me fears both wikis will wither after a split.  But wiki should be lean and fast; it's a work-horse, not a show-horse.  "Wiki" MEANS quick - it's why I started here: the other sites were unusable on my old computer.
 * My eyes physically hurt when viewing black text on white background (even at maximum dimness). Even the editing window causes some discomfort.  I would probably not continue to edit if black-on-white were the only option.  I don't think I've seen the new skin, but I don't see why it should be uncustomizable.  --Keyesc (talk) 01:05, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the possible competition caused by the split will beneficial in the long run. There's a chance one wiki will die (just look at wowhead vs thottbot), but the likelihood of both dying is slim considering the wiki has a strong community as-is.   &hearts; <font color="#FF3399">sunsmoon  (<font color="#ff99cc">talk  & <font color="#ff99cc">cont ) 01:10, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * And consider: we've got an expansion dropping in a few months. Hell, the patch is already down. Now, if all the best editors go to the new wiki, where do you think the people are going to go for their Cata info? Qing Guang (talk) 20:39, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Continue to edit, or wait for the new domain?
I spent some time tonight fixing up a page that was outdated with the patch (and now have a killer headache, thanks to enabling the new skin....) I was wondering if any more cleaning up post-patch should wait until after the move? If wikia wants to keep this wiki, they can have 20,000 pages of outdated item stats and dead links to go with it, right? :P --Grynd (talk) 06:00, October 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * I say leave it, and update after the move. If Wikia want a nice up to date site, well, let them do it themselves. At least we can say that our new site will be better (more up to date) right from the start. Jeffajaffa (talk) 09:54, October 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'd say stop updating, especially for Cata stuff. Dorvelle (talk) 16:51, October 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately for addon developers, Wowiki's API documentation is sometimes the only place to look for information. There was a lot of undocumented changes to WoW's API, and addon developers will need some of this information in order to make them usable. --DrDoom (talk) 20:26, October 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think updating should continue. I'm planning on moving to the new wiki when it happens, but all the same I'm not going to let that stop me from contributing to the community at large by making updates here in the mean time while we wait.  Remember, changes to this wiki are not done for the benefit of Wikia, they are done for the benefit of the community.  That doesn't change after the split happens, albiet at that time some of us will no longer consider ourselves serving the same community. So yes, keep updating.  Sure, it benefits Wikia... but no need to be mean about it.  Wikia and the new wiki can co-exist, the internet is big enough for both.  We shouldn't hesitate to do something nice for someone else (even Wikia).  If we did, we never would have been contributers anyways! ddcorkum (talk) 21:35, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to edit, just be aware we can't stop all editing while we get the dump so you may have to re-do some edits on the new wiki. -- 21:40, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you post here and let us know when the cutoff is for edits appearing on the new wiki? -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:48, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Since Wikia did not provide a text dump, we have retrieved one ourselves with the wiki API yesterday. We are trying to do an incremental update from that full dump to get the pages edited since then but the bot is getting stuck and we're trying to see how close we are.  If we can, we'll probably re-try the incremental tomorrow.  In short, now would be a good time to stop doing the work you especially would hate to re-do (because possibly we'll just go with the full dump from yesterday since it's "full enough"), but of course small fixes are easy to do-over. -- 22:36, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have some legal concerns. What, exactly, is the bot doing? Is it uploading the pages with their full edit histories, or just copy-pasting the page contents without any attribution? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:23, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Full histories. It complies with CC-BY-SA. -- 03:26, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * We updated the text dump at Kd3's request a couple of weeks ago. There's a later request in the queue now, which will probably get to the top of the to-do list shortly.... if you still want it (if not, please let me know, and I'll take it off the list) -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 19:21, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. -- 19:35, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts from a former editor
I haven't made any edits to this wiki in a very long time, but I still use it frequently. I would GLADLY support a move away from Wikia and would be glad to help out. Having been through this arduous process with another wiki and trying to spearhead a move away from Wikia's control, I know exactly what you're going through. I have experienced nothing but frustration with Wikia administration. They seem out of touch and completely unwilling to listen to their users, opting instead to try to convince people that the decisions they make are good ones.

Keep up the good work and I look forward to helping out with the wiki in its new home, wherever that may be. Dorvelle (talk) 16:56, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not an editor, but a long-time user of WoWWiki, and I say, wherever wowwiki and the staff goes, I'll go there, and tell all my friends about the change as well.Macronaso (talk) 20:05, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

So, where're the new digs?
Is it just not ready? Or are the (soon-to-be former) admins just not allowed to post the URL here, for whatever reason? I'd like to update my bookmarks, and start using the new site, if it's up and running. :) --PaxArcana (talk) 20:02, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not ready yet. The wiki text itself is about 18GB, which is a lot of data :P -- 20:04, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool beans. Just didn't like the thought I'd missed it somewhere in the gigantic wall of text, above.  :) --PaxArcana (talk) 20:06, October 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Any ideas on roughly how long it will be before we can take a look at the new site? I'm not in a rush, but are we talking days or weeks? Jeffajaffa (talk) 23:07, October 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Still on track to be live before Blizzcon - which is a week from now. :) Resa1983 (talk) 00:36, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

Editor/contributor names?
I don't know if this has already been addressed, but is there any idea how the username thing will work on the new site? Also the only way I manage to keep up with changes is via the emails from wikia, any ideas on that as well? Thanks in advance Saberd of The Shattered Sun (talk) 21:13, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll be able to claim your existing username and existing edits, though you will need to recreate your account (and thus re-specify all your preferences). People who do not like their current name will be able to change it.  We will endeavor to make sure people know what's going on when there is more news to announce. -- 21:15, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Send us the new site info
It seems obvious that you will, but I haven't seen it mentioned here, yet, so I'm asking about it, to be certain. When the move finally does occur, are you going to send all of the WoWWiki users pertinent information about the new site? I know I'll want it. :) --X-Malleus (talk) 04:26, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. The info about the move (we're getting closer... should be in a few days) will be very widespread. -- k_d3 16:29, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

Fan Site Status
After reading through this whole page over the last 24 hours, the one question/assumption that's come up in several places without being seriously addressed is that the new location will quickly get fan site status from Blizzard, and that this old one on wikia may even lose it. I'm sure the admin connections are good enough to support the new site's quick acceptance, but looking at Blizzard's five criteria (relevance, update frequency, age requirement, completeness, and ToU compliance ), it seems unlikely that WoWWiki would lose its status in the near future, unless the move is so complete that the old site goes un-updated for weeks at a time. Much as it would be funny to have Blizzard withdraw status, it appears to be wishful thinking. Anybody know any reason to think otherwise? Jerodast (talk) 18:06, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Some emails have been sent to our fansite contact about this. Things are kinda hectic at Blizz since BlizzCon happens next week. I'll be bringing it up in person when I get a chance. ;) -- k_d3 22:15, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

Wikia Update
A quick update. I mentioned above that we are working on ways to better deal with wide tables on WoWWiki. The top contender at the moment is to increase the size of the fixed width area to 1200px. The concern is that this will mean that those with their resolution width set to 1024 will have a scrollbar that they don't have in the standard view. However, this wiki has an unusually low number of visitors using that resolution compared to the rest of Wikia, so fewer people will be affected than would on other wikis. We are currently looking at mock-ups and so on to see how well this will work. I'll let you know as soon as I hear more -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 22:47, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * That you're having this problem should be a big hint to you that fixed-width formats are nearly always wrong for the web, and certainly wrong for text-oriented content sites. JoshuaRodman (talk) 00:21, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with JoshuaRodman on this note... the only thing "fixed" should be the width of the border on each side. People with larger screens should have a larger central content area and people with narrower screens a smaller central content area.  Make the content area scale to screen size, and you eliminate the table problem.  The issue here is that you are trying to micro-manage what tables look like for people, when that isn't your responsibiltiy.  Your responsibility is to provide content.  Let people, with their own browsers, monitors, etc. decide how they want it to look for themselves.  If they are happy with a small monitor that doesn't display tables well, its their own problem.  If they want it to be widescreen, they'll go out and buy a $200 monitor.  Let them. ddcorkum (talk) 03:48, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Quote: "However, this wiki has an unusually low number of visitors using that resolution compared to the rest of Wikia ..." -- Sannse (help forum | blog)
 * That's because most of the people who visit this site are gamers. lol — EGingell (T|C|F) Treader of Cenarion Circle 08:29, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's almost as if different wikis have different target audiences, which would make it counterproductive to force the same design on all of them rather than allowing each wiki's administrators to determine what fits their community's needs! Jerodast (talk) 08:33, October 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * Every wiki is different just like every blog. Even if a fixed width must be used fixed widths are a lot more tolerable if they are fluid, flexible widths up to the maximum width. But the maximum width needs to be set to the next more logical level of 1152 or 1280 pixels. Those are the next incremental width jumps after 1024 pixels in my monitor. If the sidebar were put on the left, then wide tables would be less of a problem too. They could be allowed to extend past the maximum width. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:48, October 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, I've seen the live mockup - apart from a few needed tweaks, it looks pretty good, and does fit out content better. 14:12, October 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * At this point it seems pretty clear that regardless of how acceptable the skin will be "when you're done with it" (which for some reason is a condition that will only be met some time after you make it the default?), it's worth it to cut the cord just to avoid the confusion and controversy that surrounds every potentially site-breaking decision forced upon us from above. Jerodast (talk) 17:54, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

Do any WoWWiki users vehemently want to say with Wikia and use their new skin at this point? If so, why?-- 21:11, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

Sidebar navigation
Pcj and others. What is the CSS and JS used in Monaco's rollover sidebar navigation? People will need it whether they stay on Wikia or fork. Please reply here if you can:
 * Forum: Can sidebar site navigation be returned in a show/hide box? --Timeshifter (talk) 08:55, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Can other wikis use your hosting?

 * Note: Moved from Forum:Migration plans update to here.

I am an admin and bureaucrat at the Cannabis Wiki. It has over a thousand pages. Most of them look too cramped in the Oasis new look. Plus the extensive sidebar navigation is lost in Oasis. See:
 * http://cannabis.wikia.com/wiki/MediaWiki:Monaco-sidebar
 * Forum:Can sidebar site navigation be returned in a show/hide box?
 * http://cannabis.wikia.com/wiki/Template:Site_navigation

The brainpower of the admins at wowwiki could easily maintain a wiki farm. Once you install the wiki software for wowwiki, I believe it is relatively easy to add additional wikis.

As long as you allow the admins at the Cannabis Wiki to control the width of content space and sidebars I wouldn't mind if your wiki farm used lots of ads in that content space. I can't afford to pay for the hosting or staff time, so ads are necessary. As long as ads are marked as ads. Editors can turn off ads anyway.

I think competition is good, and improves all wikis. There is a place for wiki farms that allow maximum customization of CSS and JS. If Wikia chooses to severely limit customization, then that is their right. I think they will have to provide a few more choices, at the very least, if they want to keep growing.

It may be cheaper for a wiki farm to use the default skin provided by MediaWiki, and allow maximum customization of that skin via CSS and JS. I can see the logic of using only one skin. But any skin is improved by maximum customization in my opinion. I personally don't care what skin is used if I can customize it greatly. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:18, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * We're not going to a wiki farm - we've worked out deals for only WoWWiki and its translations. -- 12:10, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh well. After your research which do you think is the best wiki farm? Do any of them allow much customization? --Timeshifter (talk) 13:10, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I highly doubt the admins seriously looked at any of the wiki farms, as they're too small and wouldn't have the hardware, etc to host wowwiki without crashing constantly. Shoutbox grabbed a few small wikis, and from what I've heard, is crashing under the new load. Anyways, this convo really belongs in the other thread, not this one. Resa1983 (talk) 13:19, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ShoutWiki info. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:45, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

RuneScape is watching!
Just telling you that the RuneScape Wiki is watching your progress which will probably affect our decision to move or not. Best of luck with the move! (remember Wikia never saw this) 222Talk 07:03, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

WoWRP
We are joining you guys. And more Wiki's should leave Wikia.. <span style="background-color: #480000; text-align:left;border-top: 2px dashed #ef4747;border-bottom:2px dashed #ef4747;padding:1px 5px 1px 5px; font-family:Verdana; font-size:10px;"> Elüna  talk  &middot;  contr     08:28, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

Love it
I am currently using wowpedia (actually come to think of it you would already know that, my edit would only show up in one not the other) and it is very nice. I dont know if this is an old skin or a new one, but it is very good, way better than Oasis, and, dare i say it, better than Monaco too. I was doubtful about the move, but seeing how everything runs very smoothly, im supporting you here majorly. The only thing that scares me is the little copyright thing at the bottom when you edit... --Sheffi (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sheffi, the old text (on the old site) was "All contributions are considered to be released under the CC-BY-SA (see WoWWiki:Copyrights for details)." The new text is "Please note that all contributions to Wowpedia are considered to be released under the Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (see Wowpedia:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."  Are you objecting to the tone?  The meaning is unchanged. JoshuaRodman (talk) 02:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Right; the wording is different everywhere, but the meaning is pretty much the same. --[[Image:IconSmall_Deathwing.gif]] Joshmaul, Loremaster of Chaos (Leave a Message) 06:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah the tone's a bit scary, but i'll get over it soon enough.I know it means the same thing, but it seems a lot scarier with the new text, idk why.--Sheffi (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We're actually using the default copyright/editing warning now, which comes with MediaWiki and is used on wikipedia. The "merciless editing" line existed on wowwiki if memory serves, just not in the same spot. -- k_d3 22:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to chip in and say awesome on the move and keeping the classic layout intact. I hadn't had a chance to even know about the Wikia changes until I visited WoWWiki a few days ago, and my God is the new layout horrible. I'll be visiting Wowpedia exclusively. The Cheat (talk) 09:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well
Did kirkburn and company move too? Was this a coup? Where is my nice signature... its so boring now Sharlin (talk)
 * Oh, found my sig but how do I make it active? its on my user page as /sig

and no confirmation code is being sent to the account specified. Sharlin (talk)
 * OK, fixed the sig, now, how do I get my confirmation e-mail??? <span style="background:#F5F5F5; border:2px solid #000000; padding:2px; margin-left:4px; font-size:90%;" title"Flaxen Haired Ho"> S h a r l i n  <span style="background:#F5F5F5; border:0px border-left:0px; padding:1px; margin-right:6px; font-size:80%;"><font color="#000000" title="Talk!">Talk  / <font color="#696969" title="Did!">Did   12:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)