(07-30-2026, 06:28 AM)GethN7 Wrote:(07-29-2026, 04:39 PM)MilkmanConspiracy Wrote: I populated a few fanwiki tabs, and just had a few questions that came up while doing that.
Fan wikis refers to wikis made for fans or editable by fans right? Because there are a few high profile wikis that are technically the "Official" wiki for whatever game or IP they cover IE (Hello Kitty Island Adventure, Old School RuneScape Wiki - seems more typical for weird gloop or wiki gg sites than fandom.)
Some Creators (IE: Nintendo) and Useful Notes (IE: The Playdate video game console) have fan wikis. Of the two, I think it’s more common for creators to have wikis.
Other questions/notes:
I noticed that the drop down for new pages no longer includes laconic, so I assume that we are good to go for Short description on works pages?
In favor of putting visual editor up to a vote again, particularly if it improves on wiki discussion tools.
When it comes to fan wikis, I recommend we favor non-FANDOM wikis when possible. Mostly because they are ad-free, generally given better upkeep, and tend to be more stable in terms of content.
As for the Visual Editor, if re-enabling it gives us better discussion tools, then I would support it.
I agree about disfavoring Fandom, although I am admittedly biased against it (Arguable mid 2000s COI with Wikia and Wikibooks, to Wikibooks detriment.)
For the time being on my first sweep, I have just listed the most prominent wikis for a subject, and intend to do another sweep and list all relevant fanwiki more often when I get back to my computer and can edit easier. But in general I find the Miraheze, weird gloop, and wikigg wikis to be higher quality, especially if they were the result of a fandom getting fed up and forking.