Later on in the article, Jimbo also says something that me and several others, such as the rest of the Final Fantasy WikiProject and User:Seraphimblade, have been advocating:
"[Wikia] is not Wikipedia, right. It's my new organization with a completely separate website. Basically part of the way we're framing it is that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia and Wikia is all the rest of the library. So it's anything people want to collaborate on."
I urge people to encourage the transwiki of cruft. Cruft isn't things like articles on games or the entire cast as a whole; by cruft, I mean lists of weapons, armor, locations, and other stuff that goes into excessive detail and does not have a chance to balance in-universe with out-of-universe. The Final Fantasy WikiProject has been doing it for a while, and we're moving right along. Granted, this is off the topic of "reliable sources", but it's still a good point.
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
SonOfYoungwood@aol.com wrote:
I urge people to encourage the transwiki of cruft. Cruft isn't things like articles on games or the entire cast as a whole; by cruft, I mean lists of weapons, armor, locations, and other stuff that goes into excessive detail and does not have a chance to balance in-universe with out-of-universe. The Final Fantasy WikiProject has been doing it for a while, and we're moving right along. Granted, this is off the topic of "reliable sources", but it's still a good point.
Have you guys summarized this discussion on-wiki somewhere? I'd love to have that link on file next time I need to tell a well-meaning person that we have to delete their nicely-formatted, 3-page article on that cool spaceship that would have appeared in the movie had the scene not been cut.
Me pointing them in the direction of Wikia is ok, but I'd much rather they get a detailed explanation from their fellow fans.
William
On 5/30/07, SonOfYoungwood@aol.com SonOfYoungwood@aol.com wrote:
Later on in the article, Jimbo also says something that me and several others, such as the rest of the Final Fantasy WikiProject and User:Seraphimblade, have been advocating:
"[Wikia] is not Wikipedia, right. It's my new organization with a completely separate website. Basically part of the way we're framing it is that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia and Wikia is all the rest of the library. So it's anything people want to collaborate on."
I urge people to encourage the transwiki of cruft. Cruft isn't things like articles on games or the entire cast as a whole; by cruft, I mean lists of weapons, armor, locations, and other stuff that goes into excessive detail and does not have a chance to balance in-universe with out-of-universe. The Final Fantasy WikiProject has been doing it for a while, and we're moving right along. Granted, this is off the topic of "reliable sources", but it's still a good point.
Honestly, for me to support the transwiki of "cruft" the Wikia are going to have to be integrated a lot tighter with WP. I have no problem with spinning it off, but we can't let the plot summaries, etc. that people value Wikipedia for be lost. On some random internet thread about Wikipedia, people were complaining that Wikipedia is becoming just like a dead tree encyclopedia and abandoning the plot summaries in the name of "contextualizing the work." Which is prossibly what we want, but you have to have the other stuff _very_ easily accessible. Not as in one external link to the Wikia at the bottom of the article, as in our links to spun-off articles at the top of a section dealing with that facet of the topic. ~~~~
On May 31, 2007, at 8:56 PM, Gabe Johnson wrote:
Honestly, for me to support the transwiki of "cruft" the Wikia are going to have to be integrated a lot tighter with WP. I have no problem with spinning it off, but we can't let the plot summaries, etc. that people value Wikipedia for be lost. On some random internet thread about Wikipedia, people were complaining that Wikipedia is becoming just like a dead tree encyclopedia and abandoning the plot summaries in the name of "contextualizing the work." Which is prossibly what we want, but you have to have the other stuff _very_ easily accessible. Not as in one external link to the Wikia at the bottom of the article, as in our links to spun-off articles at the top of a section dealing with that facet of the topic. ~~~~
I've been trying to accomplish this with [[Template:FreeContentMeta]] and some of its subboxes, but a rather horrifyingly entrenched bunch of process wonks seem to be convinced that a decision made by seven people on the talk page of a MoS guideline trumps all other possible reasons for action, so it's proving an uphill struggle.
-Phil