Forum:Who's staying, Who's going?

Forums: Index > The World that Never was > Who's staying, Who's going?

Enhancements

Hijacking this thread so that we don't open ninethousand threads on this issue. To follow up on the "On What Remains" section of the "Where will we go?" thread, let's go for ideas on enhancing content. Present content is staying. So far, what we have:

• Adding Real World content
• Fanon content
• Theory namespace

Vote

Chitalian8 Say... — Only by allowing strangers in can we find new ways to be ourselves. Life's little crossroads are often as simple as the pull of a trigger. — 21:22, November 15, 2010 (UTC) So with the decision to move the existing wiki to another address, and to let the wiki here allow more fan-related material, there will inevitably be some users who are drawn to one location or the other. Some people may edit on one or the other, or possibly both. I suggest compiling a list of who's going to edit on the moved wiki, and who's going to stay here on the more fan-oriented one. If you would, please write your name/signature under one of the options.

Going to the new address

• Chitalian8 21:22, November 15, 2010 (UTC)
• LapisLazuliScarab21:30, November 15, 2010 (UTC)
• Ag (Silver) - 47 107.8682 amu ~Crono 23:32, November 15, 2010 (UTC)
• I could very well stay here to do some test coding and such (like the game that I'm trying to figure out), but the other one will be my home. KRCCFNF is tired of being STEPPED ON.
• Ay, dios mio! I might be late tomorrow. - Erry 07:40, November 16, 2010 (UTC)
• Lapidothtill 16:37, November 16, 2010 (UTC)
• ShardofTruth 23:04, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
• I'm changing my position. If Sannse represents Wikia, then I no longer want to have anything to do with it--ShadowsTwilight 02:39, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
• Personally, I don't want to move, but if we are going to put fanon stuff here, I would leave. SeanWheeler 23:08, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
• 22:43, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
• Ya know I'd rather just stay and get Monaco back, but since that will not be happening I have little interest to stay if we can get something like we used to have again somewhere else. And as SeanWheeler said, "Personally, I don't want to move, but if we are going to put fanon stuff here, I would leave." If were going to allow fan produced material such as yaoi couplings or anything even close that that filth I'm leaving just like that. Even if there isn't a new wiki to go to.--File:Terra-Ansem.pngiZerox 06:26, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
• They took away Moncao, and I don't want Fanon stuff to be here on this wiki. That's why we have the KHFanon wiki.Keyblade0
• Comin' with, whether ya like it or not! Nah, but seriously, I would not like fanon stuff on this wiki. iZerox is right, all we'd get is crappy soriku amvs (shudders)Mar 02:33, December 9, 2010 (UTC)

Going to work on both

• I'll be staying to keep off the vandals. Expect me to be more active on the new site, though. The17Master13:03, November 16, 2010 (UTC)
• 99% new address, 1% old address. But that's still "both". [[ Soxra ]] 04:16, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
• I'll still browse on this address, but I'll mainly stay at the new one, which like Soxra said, is still both.--Bettafishrule2579 22:38, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
• Likewise, I too plan to edit on both sites. Although I doubt Central Wikia will do it, there's always the slight chance they might/maybe/possibly remove this horrid new skin. And if they do, I want to make sure this Wikia is up and running. However, this doesn't mean I won't be helping out on the new address. Although my activity is very low, I will still help both sites equally.--Xion4ever 22:04, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
• I don't mind using both sites. It might be fun. --Master Vantius 21:26, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

I think I should jump in here to be clear that the wiki won't be moving, even if some of the editors here choose to fork the wiki and edit elsewhere. The wiki and all its content will still be here and open for editing. The idea of documenting more of the fan-based stuff sounds great, and I like the ideas that people have put forward about how to distinguish between the two types with templates or a different namespace. But it also needs to be acknowledged that the content that's been built here will still be here, and anything else should enhance that not replace it :) -- Sannse<staff /> (help forum | blog) 05:58, November 16, 2010 (UTC) (p.s. there are a few discussion pages now, so I wasn't sure where to add this - please move it if you prefer!

Uh, yeah. We know. What makes you think we ever thought differently? i think what he meant by "moved wiki" was "wiki we are moving to".--ShadowsTwilight 06:03, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

The Q Continuum weeps. Don't patronize us, we know what we're doing. maggosh 06:05, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

It's a fair concern because traditionally when you say that something is "moving," that means it's being taken from one place and being put in another. In this case, it's more like something is being copied to somewhere else, at which point it will take on a life of its own, but the original is still there too to take on yet a different life. Agent0042 11:15, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

"But it also needs to be acknowledged that the content that's been built here will still be here," - That's not how a wiki works, sannse. The content on a wiki is at the discretion of that wiki's current community - if the current community wants to dump the content and put up their own content instead, that is perfectly within their rights. Claiming that the wikia wiki would need to keep some kind of memorial or shrine to the previous community is a bizarre misinterpretation of how community-based wiki's have worked, ever.(ಠ_ೃ) Bully! 14:55, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying it should be forever fixed in place - of course it should develop and grow. But at the same time, what I've seen elsewhere is an intention to remove content from the parent wiki (by "changing the wiki's direction") in order to prevent it competing with the new wiki. From what I've read, that's not what's going on here :), but I wanted to be blunt about what is and isn't acceptable. If there's a need for a wiki with fan-based content and not the reference content already here, then you are welcome to make it. And, of course, you are welcome to build on the content here. But simply switching the purpose of this wiki in order to prevent competition with your fork is not a viable option. Even if there is consensus among those who have decided to move, there are the past and future communities of this wiki to consider. -- Sannse<staff /> (help forum | blog) 20:06, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

"I'm not saying it should be forever fixed in place[...]switching the purpose of this wiki in order to prevent competition with your fork is not a viable option." Make up your mind, willya? maggosh 20:19, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

Sannse, to be perfectly blunt, we are not switching the purpose of this wiki. Oasis switched the purpose of this wiki (and most others), by making comprehensive coverage of the sort that we sought untenable. This is our attempt to find any purpose that is still doable, since our other option is just to dump a barely-functioning wreck on the community that stays behind, which will make them look bad, and sabotage the findability of the new site.

This is the point where wikia needs to just take its lumps and accept that content-based wikis will no longer be very able to function, instead of demanding that we all not only suffer for wikia's bad decisions, but refrain from using what few methods of alleviation we have left.

Oasis is designed for the facebook crowd, to attract casual readers with much shallower interest in the material, or to attract those with less rigorous methods. We get that, and we are playing along with that. But it is a huge slap in the face to all of us when we try to oblige wikia's decisions, and they give us stuff like this, patronizing us and painting our compromise as an attack on wikia.

We're trying to find a peaceful solution. Wikia is the one making this into a catfight by sending us missives like the one above. Its insulting to us, and doesn't engender any sympathy to you.(ಠ_ೃ) Bully! 21:35, November 16, 2010 (UTC)z

Maggosh: it shouldn't be fixed in place, but it also shouldn't be diminished in order to prevent competion with a fork. I don't see a contradiction there.

KrytenKoro: I don't have any intention to be patronizing or insulting. And I don't agree that there is anything in the skin change that means this wiki cannot continue to be a comprehensive resource on Kingdom Hearts. I think that's the fundamental difference of opinion here (you and I seem to have those a lot :-/ I'm sorry) -- Sannse<staff /> (help forum | blog) 02:17, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

You had no intention of patronizing and insulting us, and yet you go right on ahead and do just that. Man, can you do anything that you intend to do? You intend to make a skin that improves on Monaco, you make one that's worse. You intend to persuade us to enjoy Oasis and for us to stay with Wikia, and now we can't wait to leave. You have no intention of patronizing and insulting us, and then you go right out and treat us like dirt who don't know what they're doing. AM I THE ONLY ONE NOTICING A PATTERN HERE!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? P.S., don't try and argue with Kryten, it won't end well for you. Believe me, I know from personal experience--ShadowsTwilight 02:29, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that for a second. One of the first things Wikia mentioned about the Oasis transition was that infoboxes would no longer fit. Infoboxes are an integral part of how most wiki's display information, and we, for example, could not do comprehensive coverage of the various items in the series without them.

You can't tell me that Wikia saw that infoboxes wouldn't fit, and nobody said "Hey, won't this compromise information coverage?" Either wikia knew exactly what would happen, and said "That's fine, it's not our main goal," or they didn't think it through, in which case you should have different people in charge of...well, the entire development of wikia, since I've seen beta testers saying they mentioned this.

I fully agree that this wiki can continue to be a resource on Kingdom Hearts. To be perfectly blunt, it is great foolishness to think it could still be comprehensive.(ಠ_ೃ) Bully! 02:35, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

@ShadowsTwilight: Hyperbole helps no one. Wikia may be ignoring us, but Sannse is at least talking to us, even if she isn't really listening. She's not treating us like dirt. And Sannse is a Wikia staff member, i.e. not Kryten's intellectual inferior. What you said is actually somewhat insulting.

@Sannse: You may not intend to be patronizing, but that doesn't mean you aren't being patronizing. And you are. We asked Wikia time and time again not to employ the new skin or, at the very least, not make it mandatory, and they ignored us and the numerous other Wikis that did the same. We gave detailed reasons as to why it wouldn't work, including the way it screwed up tables, the look was not at all taylored for an encyclopedia - instead appearing more Facebook - and the idea of broadcasting who uploaded which image on main articles, which completely goes against the idea that the Wiki is for everyone, just to name a few. Then there's also the various bugs that The_Inexistent has been informing you of. This skin gear the Wiki to a more social and user-focused way of working, which isn't necessarily a bad thing... unless you want to have what a Wiki should be, an information database. It is for those reasons (and I'm sure I missed a few) that we are moving the "official", information-based Wiki to a new location; Wikia as it is now simply does not accomodate our needs for this, and Wikia itself has been stubborn in refusing to work with us with this. Short of repairing some of the bugs, Wikia did not take any action to adress the complaints people raised, like the useless third of the right side of the screen that is blank, or the pictures thing I mentioned earlier. As Kryten has pointed out, we can change the way the Kingdom Heart Wiki on Wikia operates if we want to, and frankly our desire to do so and try and accomodate the more social, Facebook-esque skin is more than you (Wikia) deserve. I will end by telling what I have told another user on here I don't know how many times; We are moving. Period. That decision was made some time ago with a 17 to 3 vote for moving, and it is not changing. Stop trying to fillibuster us and either help or kindly step aside.LapisLazuliScarab02:46, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

ever think that was the idea? roundabout's fair play.--ShadowsTwilight 02:51, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

What now?LapisLazuliScarab03:03, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with you Lapis. @Sannse: As an anon, I don't pull much weight around here, if any. But I've been reading these move-related forums since Oasis was rather rudely forced upon myself and all other anonymous readers/editors/KH fans. I agree with every problem that has been stated about Oasis, and fully support the move. I respect the fact that you're willing to come to these forums, but, to be honest, no matter what you say or how much you argue, most of this community is leaving. Oasis is simply not suitable for our purpose or readers, something that Wikia has turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to. Thank you for supporting the Kingdom Hearts Wiki, but it's time for us to move on to more suitable lodgings. 66.215.20.249 04:32, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Kryten: "One of the first things Wikia mentioned about the Oasis transition was that infoboxes would no longer fit." - Infoboxes still fit, I'm not sure where that quote came from. They don't have as much room compared to the view on larger monitors before Oasis, and I personally like the idea a feature that allows them to be in the right sidebar, but they are certainly still a workable and key element of many pages. (Random trivia: I was instrumental in getting them named "infoboxes" originally, in the early days of Wikipedia. When they were first used they were called "taxoboxes" and just used for biology articles, but that name didn't work as we started using them more widely)

On being patronizing: I disagree I am being so, your perception is different. All I can do right now is to keep trying to change that perception. If another IRC chat will help us with that, I'd be happy to do that.

LapisScarab: I may not be able to give you what you want, that's not the same as ignoring you. A lot of changes have been made in response to feedback, and that will continue as the skin develops over time and we gather more data on actual use. I acknowledge that you are forking, and I'm not trying to stop that -- just to prevent harm to this wiki as you do so. It comes down to what I said elsewhere: you have the right to fork, you do not have the right to control the future of a wiki you have left. I know I've failed to persuade you to stay, so now I'm here to work with you and to try and make the fork as smooth as possible. -- Sannse<staff /> (help forum | blog) 16:37, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

A) You tried to insinuate that we didn't know what the hell we were doing, so no, you weren't patronizing us, you were flat out insulting our intelligence, which is not helping your case in the slightest. The only feedback you're "listening" to is the kind that tells you things you can fix, which probably takes up a small percentage of the feedback. The rest is telling you that Oasis is a complete failure and that Monaco was the better option and that it should be changed back, so yes, Sannse, you are ignoring us, or else you would have already known that.--ShadowsTwilight 17:28, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Time to tear that apart. As they have not yet actually left, they are still part of this wiki. On that grounds, they should be permitted to "control the future of the wiki" on the aforementioned grounds, even if that future is the elimination of the wiki. If you believe the contrary, then under the same reasoning, no one, including yourself, should have any control over anything, editting or otherwise regarding this wiki (or any for that matter). This is not a matter of opinion, this is the simple logic that you seem to wish to deny those that are still here (even if they claim to be leaving) the same rights as those that are still here (that haven't made such a claim, or have claimed the opposite). The fact of the matter is that they are, in fact, still here. They still have the same rights to alter the future of this wiki, in the same way you had the right to alter it by introducing and forcing Oasis upon it, which many, including myself view as vandalism of the highest degree, so do not attempt to label their wish to delete the wiki as vandalism, as Oasis, by definition, is vandalism (destroys wikis).--Zyeriis 23:00, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

ShadowsTwilight: I think that anything I say to you right now (including this probably) is going to be heard in a tone I don't intend. I understand that you think Oasis is a failure and should be removed, disagreeing with you is not ignoring you.

Zyeriis, I'll copy a part from my talk page: I agree that bringing a fan focus to the wiki would not be harmful - that's a viable choice for any wiki, just as a strictly encyclopedic focus to content is. The part that worries me is "this wiki would no longer have comprehensive coverage". If that involves deleting perfectly good articles that are useful to readers and any future community of this wiki, especially if the intention in doing that is to prevent competition with a fork, then that's the part I have a problem with. -- Sannse<staff /> (help forum | blog) 07:59, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, Sannse, I understand what Wikia is heading with the change on the skin, updating and keeping with the new trend on internet these days. I as an editor will help the wiki adapt to the changes Wikia has given us. I had not been bitter when Wikia forced Quartz, then Monaco, then New Look and refuses to allow Monobook to become the default skin for users out there, and I am still not bitter now, because as long as Monobook is around, I have no problems with it. In any case, as I have been supporting Monaco as much as I love Monobook (and I still am using Monobook right this instance), I will also help the wiki to upkeep New Look.

Anyway, removing content from this wiki because of so-called "competition" is pretty much not helping to the wikia wiki. Content is the most important part of the wiki, not skins, not addons, not tools. Give one wiki as much tools as it can, if there's no content to write, then the wiki won't be of much help at all. If there are users who attempt to remove content from the wiki, it will stand as a bad-faith edit. To be sure, I don't believe there would be anything like a "competition": this wiki, while retaining its present content, is going to add new content in terms of fan and real-life aspects, thus in a way, it's not going to hinder the moving wiki's purpose of being "encyclopedic".

I'm still looking for ideas for the remaining Wikia wiki, tho. I do invite more suggestions, Sannse. You've been very optimistic on the New Look endeavor, so I will help as much as I can. ^BLUER一番 12:31, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

I have not heard anyone say anything about deleting pages. The lack of comprehensive coverage stems from Oasis, which inhibits navigation and article viewing. We aren't able to delete this wiki entirely (although I'm sure many would like to). The best way for us to prevent competition with the upcoming fork is for the majority of the existing community to leave. There will be some users who stay, and a new community who comes in, but if most of the current community goes with the fork, that'll give it enough time to get higher on google, in which case the competition will be settled. You must understand that for the fork to work, it has to be easy to find. But that won't happen if this site is the one that shows up on google first. New visitors won't know which one to go to, and will be probably pick the top one. Which will need to be fork, the one that's more accessible to unregistered visitors. We're not going to sabotage this site, we're just leaving it. 66.215.20.249 08:32, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

I'll say this as simple as I can, deleting a wiki that is using Oasis, isn't deleting any "perfectly good articles". Oasis has made many, many, many pages completely unusable. Under your very logic, they should be permitted to be deleted, as there is no way to "repair/revert" them to a previous state of usability. You can "believe" they are still good but I'm sure I could find 100 to every 1 person you can get to say this, to say otherwise.

Other than that, it is truly inconceivable how hypocritical you are. "If that involves deleting perfectly good articles that are useful to readers and any future community of this wiki, especially if the intention in doing that is to prevent competition with a fork, then that's the part I have a problem with." Oasis has ruined perfectly good articles that were useful to readers and any current or future communities on those wikis. And now, you are attempting to provoke competition with the very people who built this site in the first place. You are turning their invention against them at the same time as twisting that invention to your own will. How is what you are doing, any different. Please enlighten me as to how their intentions are worse than Wikia's "misdeeds". The only true difference is that you hold more power (and by scale, higher probability of corruption).

For the record, Strictly encyclopedic focus on content is not a viable option anymore. Or at the very least, previous encyclopedic articles/wikis have been destroyed by Oasis. I really don't know how many times I have to say it but, I will continue to do so. You keep bringing your personal feelings into your arguement, as defensive points rather than tone, which is one of the reasons you can't seem to come up with a legitimate reason for Oasis (because there isn't a fact-based one). Most arguments against Oasis have been based in fact rather than opinion and the Wikia staff's ignorance on this, is truly infuriating.--Zyeriis 21:40, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Bluerfn - the only pages that anyone ever seriously suggested deleting are the ones on items and accessories, such as Fire Ring, which are of no use to a fan-based wiki, and are pretty much just infoboxes as it is, meaning that they look awful in the new skin. If it helps Sannse to understand what we are doing, the new wiki would no longer be comprehensive about Kingdom Hearts, but it would be comprehensive, within the community's allowable limits, about the fan material.

Again, I honestly don't think it's in anyone's best interests for this wiki to have the same material as the new wiki. The present material simply isn't designed for Oasis, and the transition guide even recommends trimming articles to make them fit better in Oasis. We are suggesting doing just that, as well as replacing some of the previous material with material that is more suited for wikia's current climate. I can't say this enough, Dimension Link, Dimension Link, Dimension Link. Dimension Link. That is the kind of article we were suggesting be deleted or heavily trimmed - not something like Sora, at least not in serious amounts. Sannse, I don't think you can deny that coverage like that simply can't be done in Oasis - it's not designed to convey that much information.(ಠ_ೃ) Bully! 14:48, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

I know i'm late in saying this, but
Sannse:When you're not accomodating the opinions and desires of one user, that's disagreeing. and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but when you're not accomodating the opinions and desires of the entirity of the whole frikkin community, that's ignoring, and you've been doing a whole lot of that, lately--ShadowsTwilight 16:02, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

I think what Shadows is trying to do is compare you to Marie Antionette. She knew the peasants were running out of food, heard them complaining, but wasn't willing to change what she was doing at all for their sakes. And...then some things happened.(ಠ_ೃ) Bully! 18:10, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far as executing her, Kryten, but you have a point. KRCCFNF is tired of being STEPPED ON.

Lol, "let them eat... Oasis?" 66.215.20.249 06:54, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

I think "Let them use Oasis" would be more fitting BlackSoulBlade 13:18, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

I think it was a joke, BSB ._. The17Master

Kryten: Just to repeat from my talk page, there is a new feature for extra wide tables on the way. I hope that it will be released the week after next (although I haven't got the definite date yet) -- Sannse<staff /> (help forum | blog) 18:38, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

Sannse: That's not the only issue. What about the right third of the page that's wasted? And the, at times, difficult navigation? This conflict may have begun with Oasis, but now it has become a matter of Wikia's policy. No matter how many times people complained and reported problems with Oasis, Wikia went through with it and forced it on the users, especially the unregistered visitors who are stuck with it and its shortcomings. If all the problems of Oasis were fixed (or, even better, Monaco was brought back and made the default for anons such as myself), the community here may stay. However, I do not know how others feel and can't speak for them when I say that. I'm fairly certain that unless that happens, this community is forking and "creating a brand new world, one heart at a time." 66.215.20.249 03:21, November 24, 2010 (UTC)

I think at one time, that would have been been the case, but ever since this whole Oasis mess started Wikia has either turned a deaf ear to us completely or sent us representitives like Sannse who treat us like crap and make up excuses for all of Oasis's and Wikia's shortcomings, so now, even if all of this was made right and we got Monaco back this very instant, we would still be moving due to the way Wikia's been treating it's community--ShadowsTwilight 04:44, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It started with Oasis, now it's about Wikia's policies. If anything they're pushing us away. 66.215.20.249 17:53, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Anon: I know it's not the only issue, and it's certainly not the only one we are working on! But I know it's a specific one that a fix is on the way for. I can give a preview actually: this page gives an example of what we are working on. If a table fits the page, it shows as usual. If it's too wide, then it will no longer go under the sidebar, but can be expanded to the whole page width with a click. If it still' won't fit, then there are scrollbars to see the rest. I'm hoping this will be ready for release next week -- Sannse<staff /> (help forum | blog) 05:22, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Try actually following the conversation before you comment on it. We were discussing the issues that are pushing us to move,( such as Oasis, you treating us like crap, etc.), not the issues with Oasis itself, meaning no, you're not working on a single issue we were discussing. As for your little table thingy....you really don't know the definition of "improvement", do you. When you improve something, you're supposed to make it better, not prove how truly incompetent your new skin truly is--ShadowsTwilight 05:30, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

On desktop computers Oasis is a pain for navigation to important articles. How would new users know that articles about important game mechanics exist? As a fairly new user, I understand the veteran users frustrations. They have dedicated much of their time editing and perfecting the Monaco skin and providing readers with correct and current information about the game. Now they are seeing their hard work get reformatted and changed because of "Corporate Overhead". The only good that has come from Oasis is a working iPhone site. Before it was harder to read and sort, I appreciate a iPhone Wikipedia appearance since I do most of my reading on it. --Master Vantius 22:23, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Wikia wiki

Chitalian8 Hey, boss! — The world ends with you. If you want to enjoy life, expand your world. You gotta push your horizons out as far as they'll go. Enjoy the moment with all your might... whether it's gloomy, whether it's bright! — 18:14, November 28, 2010 (UTC) Starting a new section, the other one's getting crowded. Looking at the vote section, no one seems to be making a commitment about staying at the Wikia wiki. Everyone who says that they are going to work on both say that they will be 99% on the moved wiki. That brings up the question, who's actually going to spend a lot of time on this wiki?

As you just said, it appears that no one will. KRCCFNF is tired of being STEPPED ON.

Chitalian8 Say... — Only by allowing strangers in can we find new ways to be ourselves. Life's little crossroads are often as simple as the pull of a trigger. — 22:40, November 28, 2010 (UTC) Then we might as well just leave the wikia wiki to the vandals.

I agree with Chitalian8. Leave this site to the vandals, and show Wikia what happens when they don't listen to their users. 66.215.20.249 23:34, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Chitalian8 Say... — Only by allowing strangers in can we find new ways to be ourselves. Life's little crossroads are often as simple as the pull of a trigger. — 22:06, November 29, 2010 (UTC) I'm not saying that we should leave the site to the vandals, but if no one's gonna stay onboard, then we might as well sink the ship. Personally, I would like this vessel to continue sailing. I think it will be interesting to see how the fanon approach would work, and if we reconstruct her right, then the wikia wiki might actually make a pretty decent ship. /metaphors

Not fanon. Fan-based material. There's a significant difference. --Neumannz, The Dark Falcon 22:12, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

NOT FANON. NOT FAN FICTIONS. THAT'S NOT WHAT'S GOING TO BE HERE. THERE WILL NOT BE FANON WORKS HERE, unless they're high profile, like Dead Fantasy. --Neumannz, The Dark Falcon 06:30, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but as far as i'm concerned, tomato, tomawto (damn it's hard to type that idiom). even just allowing the high-profile ones is no different than allowing normal fanon to me--ShadowsTwilight 14:38, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Oh? So do you think FFWiki is crap because they cover Dead Fantasy? --Neumannz, The Dark Falcon 17:14, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

I never said it made said wiki crap, it's just not a policy I agree with--ShadowsTwilight 17:16, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Personally? I think it compromises their professionalism, especially when they include elements from it on stuff like "List of FF7 weapons". Of course, we are going for a freer, more fansite or gamefaqs type of feel here, so it works for us.(ಠ_ೃ) Bully! 17:22, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

I cannot say i disagree--ShadowsTwilight 02:55, December 2, 2010 (UTC)