According to several current Fandom employees who spoke to Aftermath on the condition of anonymity, Fandom has laid off 11 percent of its staff. On the games media side of things, that includes many GameSpot video team members and GameSpot UK.
Wikipedia has rules that a topic has to have some level of relevance to be added. While a major video game character can have enough relevance, an article for a random piece of scenery or for a “rusty dagger” item from some game would never be allowed.
Game wikis also often have unique features, for example for showing item stats or have a look and feel that fits the game.
Do you happen to know where in the rules it would list the “level of relevance”. I did a cursory read through of the content guidelines but I didn’t see anything that would necessarily exclude descriptions of specific video game content, levels, or assets, but I’m no master at Wikipedia - I can’t say I’ve contributed much beyond donations.
Also I did mention those unique features some wikis have. For example, the Old School RuneScape Wiki has some really great calculators, maps, and data collectors, so I’m very happy with those. But for less popular ones where nobody is putting in the work to make the wiki exemplary feels like we may as well save time and not give Fandom money by using Wikipedia
And look and feel I would say is good unless it’s a fandom, and then all the look and feel in the world doesn’t justify those ads
Thank you very much! I wasn’t aware of these guidelines so it’s interesting to read
I think the notability is a little hard to define, so I could see some discussion happening, especially about more minute details like individual items in games. But it seems like, based on the existence of a Krillin page, that there is at least some precedent for somewhat broader topics
Just added this to my browser this morning, coincidentally! Not sure what thread it was, but I thought it was this one. Thanks for the link though, it’ll be a big help
Wikipedia has rules that a topic has to have some level of relevance to be added. While a major video game character can have enough relevance, an article for a random piece of scenery or for a “rusty dagger” item from some game would never be allowed.
Game wikis also often have unique features, for example for showing item stats or have a look and feel that fits the game.
Do you happen to know where in the rules it would list the “level of relevance”. I did a cursory read through of the content guidelines but I didn’t see anything that would necessarily exclude descriptions of specific video game content, levels, or assets, but I’m no master at Wikipedia - I can’t say I’ve contributed much beyond donations.
Also I did mention those unique features some wikis have. For example, the Old School RuneScape Wiki has some really great calculators, maps, and data collectors, so I’m very happy with those. But for less popular ones where nobody is putting in the work to make the wiki exemplary feels like we may as well save time and not give Fandom money by using Wikipedia
And look and feel I would say is good unless it’s a fandom, and then all the look and feel in the world doesn’t justify those ads
Notability guideline is here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline
Thank you very much! I wasn’t aware of these guidelines so it’s interesting to read
I think the notability is a little hard to define, so I could see some discussion happening, especially about more minute details like individual items in games. But it seems like, based on the existence of a Krillin page, that there is at least some precedent for somewhat broader topics
There are alternatives to Fandom which aren’t Wikipedia: https://getindie.wiki/
Just added this to my browser this morning, coincidentally! Not sure what thread it was, but I thought it was this one. Thanks for the link though, it’ll be a big help