Forum:Changing hosts

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Changing hosts
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 12 December 2010 by Haloolah123.

I've become increasingly disillusioned with Wikia's practices for several months now. They've been doing things that I don't think any wiki should do. Oasis has been a debacle that has alienated a huge portion of the wiki community, and many of the biggest wikis have already left, such as world of warcraft, grand theft auto, the simpsons, and more. However its far more than just an ugly theme. In using this theme, wikia has removed our ability to control the appearance of our wiki by forbidding us to customize the theme, save for the most basic color changes. Moreover, since this skin has been forced upon everyone, and since it cannot be changed in any major way, every wiki therefore looks the same. We've lost our identity as the "RuneScape Wiki" and have become "Wikia presents RuneScape sponsored by World of Warcraft and some dude with a crappy website and some spare change". When I see things like this, I'm ashamed of the way our own wiki presents itself. We need to leave.

In order to make an educated opinion, editors must know some basic things about what will happen if we do move. First and foremost, Wikia will not allow us to remove our content when we leave. That means that right after we switch hosts, there will be two wikis with the same content. Ours, which is the real one, and an illegitimate copy that Wikia will not allow us to remove. Wikia will at least allow us to retain our name by changing the name of this wiki (to something like "Runepedia"), which has been done on the grand theft auto wiki. They will also allow us to remove our logos, as was also the case with the grand theft auto wiki, and instead create a new one, or simply use a plain wikia logo. With other wikis that moved, the amount of edits made to illegitimate wikia hosted copy was decimated, with barely a few edits per hour. Wikia presents RuneScape will undergo this process as well, and moreover it will fall into obsolescence much faster than any post-move wikis due to the fact that RuneScape is updated many times per month. This will serve to keep our status as the best wiki for RuneScape knowledge.

There will also be heavy restrictions in how we are able to inform editors and visitors of our move. Wikia considers us leaving in disgust - and wishing to tell our visitors of this move - advertising for a competitor if we 1.) tell them what our new website is on the front page or in any other place of prominence or 2.) tell editors or visitors directly to leave this wiki and go to the new one. The agreement reached on most other wikis is that we can put a notice on the main page or in other place of prominence saying that some/most editors are going to move to a different host. That notice can link to an explanation page which contains more details including the link to the new site, however we still cannot directly tell them to visit our new site instead.

In addition, I have emailed Jagex inquiring as to how this would affect our status with them, and they replied:

I’m sorry to hear of the issues you’re experiencing with the site!

So, in terms of what would happen to the existing RS Wiki on the Wikia network – We’d look to continue supporting the site at the same level (Silver); but we’d keep an eye on it and if necessary would alter the level of support available (ie if it became redundant and wasn’t being updated regularly).

We’d also definitely be interested in supporting a new site. If your entire admin team and community were to move to a new site, and you were able to meet all of the necessary criteria (ie, no gaming ads etc) then I’m sure we could place you higher than Silver.

Please do keep us updated when you hear more and in the meantime don’t hesitate to let me know if you have any further questions.

Thanks,

Hohbein

This discussion has happened before, but it was premature and not organized well enough. Now, I think we have been given enough time and we can make a better decision. Since its a matter of considerable importance, I'm going to try to keep this as organized as possible. That said, while there is a lot to discuss, its important to not discuss it all at once and in the same location. So the first step is to decide whether or not we move at all. Discussions about the specifics of the move should happen only after the first step is complete. This is because discussions about the execution will dominate the discussion and make it harder to determine whether there is consensus to leave at all. Keep in mind that although we may get consensus to move in this thread, we still need to achieve consensus on how to move in later threads, and if consensus is not also achieved there, then we may not wind up moving after all.

So, given what I have said and what you have experienced, please discuss whether or not you feel a change of host is necessary.

Discussion

Support move - As nominator. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 00:04, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

This is way worse than your pic. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 00:07, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
Both are just incredibly wrong. That way we have more WoW than the WoWwiki... JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 14:59, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Strong support - I have also been highly disillusioned with Wikia's operating methods. Their actions on this and other wikis have led me to believe that their primary motivation is profit, not the benefit of the community. Wikia is the for-profit organization that has compromised the priorities of the community for monetary gain, and hence lost its privilege to manage the RuneScape Wiki. As a general rule, for-profit companies should not manage wiki farms, due to the high potential for a conflict of interest. Below are some of my main complaints.

Image attribution: This is completely against the fundamental principles of wikis as places where users may gather and edit freely and selflessly. It incentivizes editing for the sole purpose of plastering names all across articles, and encourages counterproductive competitions to upload images. It violates RuneScape:Ownership, a policy approved with consensus because it offers undue credit to those who upload images.

Fixed width: The assumption that the editors of the RuneScape Wiki are incapable of freely writing and editing pages is appalling. Why should we waste space, especially when it can be used to improve an article or increase accessibility?

Skin: This is designed for socializing instead of editing. The purpose of a wiki is to be informative. By prioritizing social activities over editing tools, the basic purpose of a wiki is undermined. This will severely cripple the ease of synthesizing and disseminating information and knowledge.

Anyways, I strongly support moving the RuneScape Wiki to another host. As other wikis have demonstrated (especially Wowwiki/Wowpedia), a fork in which most of the community moves will result in major loss of quality for the old wiki and the new wiki will retain most of the original community. This is the right move for the future of this Wiki. --LiquidTalk 00:10, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Just for a quicker reference, here's an incomplete list we had in the last thread. - [Pharos] 00:16, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of collapsing the list for several reasons. First, it is a bit misleading, since the argument was not properly made last time. Second, the circumstances have significantly changed since then, so many of the points need to be revisited. --LiquidTalk 00:21, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
What he said. ^ I was just attempting to get a new list going - [Pharos] 00:23, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I'm really tired of Wikia breaking everything. However, would it be possible to make a bot that adds full protection to all pages and makes them redirect to their equivalents on a new RSWiki? Or at least drop a template on top of each page that has big worlds like defunct and deprecated on it? Just wondering. Guthix's Book of Balance.pngUFeelNoPainTalkFiremaking 00:20, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

That, and anything else which removes, hides, or makes users unable to edit content is not allowed, and any admin or user who does that will find themselves globally banned. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 00:26, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I am first and foremost against the conception of an "illegitimate wiki" when you cannot force users to move. While this isn't said nor may have you implied it, but I would like to think that there are going to still be users on the Wikia version of the wiki. I am also against the moving if we have someone like WoWWiki's Gourabot's run of edits post-move. I, personally, will stay here to edit on the Wikia ran wiki as long as I have access to my own personal JS and CSS. I like this skin, disliked the Monaco skin that as clearly as the Wikia skin says, "I'm run by Wikia with their default skin." I'd like to know how using the Wikia skin (Oasis) makes this Wiki any different than it did using Monaco? If it's the Shoutbox widget, it'll be back shortly as part of the WikiaRail. If it's due to the change in September of the Terms of Use then I agree it may have been a step too far, but they aren't down our throats for what's in the JS or CSS that makes this wiki different from others. Ryan PM 00:30, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Don't you object at all to the concept of a wiki being run by a for-profit company? Wikimedia is nonprofit for a reason. Advertisements detract from the quality of the wiki, but they also generate revenue. That is a major conflict of interest for any organization dedicated to expanding its bottom line. Just look at the images provided by Psycho or Evil. That is profit gone extreme. If over half the page is covered with an advertisement for World of Warcraft, something has to be done.
As for your assertion that Monaco was worse than this skin, I beg to differ. The TOU changes mean that we cannot modify this skin like we could with Monaco. Furthermore, IP's are subjected to a lot more competitive advertising than they were under Monaco. We can't even widen the page, for crying out loud. Is that really how we get information out?
Sure, you can change your personal JS/CSS, but that doesn't do the wiki any good. It doesn't change it for the masses of editors who don't have personal JS/CSS pages, and who don't know what they are. We have to take a stand. --LiquidTalk 00:38, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
I really don't see how you can say with a straight face that Oasis is no worse than monaco. Sure, it was a change, but the changes were relatively minor, as compared to Oasis which made this wiki into just another social networking site. Furthermore, Oasis is really just a small portion of the issue, and were it not for the other, more damning issues, our editors could change the oasis skin to work very well. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 00:40, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
I am not against a company that makes a profit off of a site when the creators and editors do not pay a dime to have it hosted. I say that the Wikia skin is no different than Monaco was as we are using the default theme variations of the respective skins. We wanted to look "professional" for both skins and not have a custom theme. Yes, not being allowed to edit or change some aspects of the skin wiki-wide is frustrating, but did we change the theme or skin of previous incarnations of this wiki? No. There is nothing wrong with a fixed-width page, this is the norm on many sites (take another look at the RuneScape homepage, forums, etc.). I can say it with a straight face because I loathed the Monaco skin. I also don't care if one user sees the skin as I do when users aren't restricted to a single skin (hence Monobook in your preferences or JS hacks to use other skins that haven't been marooned). Ryan PM 01:36, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - First of all, I don't think that Wikia needs to be involved in this discussion. If we leave, we should do so peacefully. I don't want us to go through the same desysopping drama that has gone on on other wikis. Now, onto fun stuff.

In terms of hosting and funding, bluehost is pretty awesome from what I know. A paypal donation button would get us that much a month easily. I have experience developing wikis, and in addition to myself I can "provide" (:P) at least three other experienced wiki developers that would be willing to develop the new wiki for free. There are various extensions that we could enable, but there is no need to get far into that now. Also, it is possible to keep the forums, but they would be reset with the move. On the bright side, however, they would be a lot better than the current ones - I'm still developing them though at the moment. Also, I oppose this per what cook has said here, and what I've said before. ajr 00:34, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support - With some reluctance, as Wikia was doing such a good job a year ago. Liquid and Psycho put it quite well. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 00:34, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - I want to switch, though I'm more inclined to agree with Chess. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 17:50, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support on condition - I agree that Wikia violates the basic purpose of a Wiki by making it for profit, however I feel uncomfortable supporting a move without having any sort of clear ideas on where we would go afterwards. edit conflict x4 svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 00:35, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

The proposal states that you're just supporting/opposing if you like the idea. The logistics will be determined after it's clear whether or not the community actually desires to make the change, and we may end up not moving at all of it proves undesirable or unrealistic. In other words, your condition is already part of the proposal. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 00:38, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
I saw that, but I just prefer to include that in my message anyway so I can remember my thoughts of time gone past. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 00:40, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
After discussion on the IRC and Cook, I oppose leaving Wikia. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 04:11, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support on condition - (edit conflict) I will support per the nominator IF you give User:MarkvA sysop powers. He's very trusted, obviously. And what are we going to do about [[w:c:nl.runescape]]? --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 00:41, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

He'd need to pass an RfA to receive sysop. And They would have to make their own decisions since they are a different community. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 00:43, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
Mark has made it clear that he would not be part of a new RuneScape Wiki. ʞooɔ 00:45, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
Nvm. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 00:45, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
Just a comment from another moved wiki (Absurdopedia) sysop about User:MarkvA: on Wikia mirror of our wiki, this guy was reverting edits of our legitimate users on their own userpages where they were saying that they moved. When he was asked about that, he just told that "they're all vandals" (regardless of their many thousands of edits and years of work). I would not recommend anyone to give this user any flags ever. [[uncyclopedia:yue:ru:User:Edward Chernenko|Edward Chernenko]] 12:00, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
*Sigh* This has been solved, and I don't see why you are bringing this up? This was a mistake on my side, I've apologised, and you are greatly exaggerating this matter. I will apologise again, for the last time.
I also don't want to just receive sysop rights on the new wiki - every user has to pass a RFA. And I don't think I'll move as stated by Cook. Mark (talk) 17:27, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
Where did the [[w:c:absurdopedia:Special:Contributions/MarkvA|discussion/reverts]] even go? Log is empty. Mark (talk) 17:36, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
May I break this discussion up? This isn't Absurdopedia. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 02:02, December 2, 2010 (UTC)


Comment - I have decided if the consensus is to leave, I will be around both wikis. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 00:47, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I'm going to hold off on sharing my opinion, but we just need to realize that if we do this, there will be an enormous drop in traffic that to be honest we may never recover from. ʞooɔ 00:47, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I registered [[w:c:runepedia]], so no, the name has been taken. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 00:48, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.... you also failed to keep your promise on that Wiki.... svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 00:49, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
Yep I hate it. But it's still registered. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 00:52, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
Special:Contact and request it be closed. I assume your the only editor, since there is a Jeffwang and a Jeffwang16 as the only b'crats. + no content. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 00:59, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
request it to be a redirect to this wiki, like [[w:c:rs]]. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 15:04, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
No thank you. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 02:02, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I know this may be getting ahead a little but, what are we going to change and what are we going to keep? Admins, Policies, Usergroups and even just our general unwritten ways of doing things. - [Pharos] 00:53, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Everything here will be imported there, rights and all probably, and everything here will remain unchanged (the community will probably change though). Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 03:14, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Remember Uberfuzzy blocking TLUL for shits and giggles? It's things like that and every point listed above that makes me want to switch. 7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko) 03:10, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support Neutral Oppose - I admit, the new skin wasn't quite as bad with a bit of css workarounds. Wikia has been willing to work with us, so that's a plus, but I think there would still be benefits to moving. The main issue I see is the drop in traffic. Especially with how limited the wikia skin is in communication...but I have an idea, that I'm not going to mention here yet. There are definitely some downfalls to moving. Personally I'm going to stick with the community as much as possible, no matter what happens. And yes...I'm strong neutral. HaloTalk 03:44, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

We won't survive this. Yes wikia can be annoying sometimes, and yes being in control of our own site might be nice, but it doesn't do anything if we don't get people looking at the better version. We're all about the readers here, and the readers will stay here, so we should as well. HaloTalk 20:12, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm sorry, I just can't support this. You guys know how mad I am at Wikia and how I wish we could leave, and I do, but we have to be practical about this. If there was a good way for us to leave, I would take it up immediately. But all of the wikis that have left Wikia have more or less met their downfall. I'm afraid that our visitors have loyalty to the site rather than to the people, and that will happen. WoWWiki moved and they have barely recovered 15% of their traffic. Leaving would be ruinous to all of us, and however much I might want to leave, there's simply no way that we can make it work.

However, it would be to our advantage to get some changes that we desire. These include changes to to Terms of Use to allow changes to site-wideCSS/JS, removal of certain ads (especially the takeover/video ads), and hopefully less Wikia branding. I know we'd also all love to have Monaco back, but we can be certain that no amount of negotiation will bring back that dead horse. ʞooɔ 05:09, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't care about monaco. I dislike oasis a lot, but it would be alright if we could just change some things. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 05:32, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
"Downfall" is an exaggeration. tfwiki.net "forked" two years ago, and is going strong compared to [[w:c:transformers:]]. --◄mendel► 08:27, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
But it's not. According to Quantcast, transformers.wikia has 59.4k monthly uniques compared to 13k for Tfwiki. And that's after two years. ʞooɔ 09:49, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
I was looking at content pages and editor activity, which makes a wiki valuable to readers and editors; I'd certainly would want to read the wiki with the better content and be part of the more active community. Tfwiki.net wins hands down in these respects. Thinking in uniques is thinking like an advertiser, and even given that quantcast doesn't really track tfwiki.net, you can draw different conclusions from the numbers available. If you're looking at people, both wikis seem somewhat comparable, and in August tfwiki.net had about 8 visits per person; wikia is consistently doing between 1 and 2 for all of its badly-run wikis, and consistently does worse on pageviews per person as well. I am willing to bet that today, tfwiki.net gets more pageviews than transformers.net . In terms of being an editor, having uniques that come to your wiki and think "This looks like shit, I'm not gonna bookmark it" are useless.
Have you seen the drop in weekly pageviews per person that runescape wiki has suffered in October [1] ? This is the "downfall" the "New Look" has already caused you. People think less of your wiki and spend less time browsing it. If you support staying at Wikia, you are supporting being not attractive. --◄mendel► 06:01, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support Oppose - The new Wikia and the new skin are a disgrace, period. Leaving won't work, a "different" approach is needed. I suggest we use consensus on this thread as leverage to allow us to implement changes to layout, communication and other important things that we desire, and unless we are denied such changes, not change hosts. (Yes, this is a repeat of Cook's point pretty much) 222 talk 05:35, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - [[w:c:User talk:Sannse#Leaving wikia]]. - [Pharos] iPhone Edit 06:09, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - Like a lot of people, I am getting very bored with Wikia. The ToU are appalling, we can't control ads, we can't get any higher than silver on Jagex's list...never has a site of our own sounded more attractive.

However, until we know exactly where we're going after we leave Wikia, and what we're going to do with all the work we'll be leaving behind, we'll have to stay. We can't ignore the fact that our traffic will suffer greatly if we move, and the derelict Wikia site will most likely get more visits than the new site, and will continue to, as long as the remainders of our content stay (Which we can't do anything about, thank you Wikia!), so it could quite proobably, as Cook said, be the death of our Wiki, which we've all worked hard on. I suggest staying with Wikia for a while longer, moving if we start thinking suicide. Real Crazy 07:43, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - (I'm pretty sure I have never strong voted anything) A lot of people don't realise how much Wikia actually does for us. The only thing I don't like is the TOU but everything else is fine and 1 thing is not a reason to leave. To me the new skin is better than Monaco with a couple of css modifications. We have free hosting here including support from staff and Wikia volunteers, if we didn't have them I think a lot of people would be shocked with how the wiki would turn out. The problem with adds, if we move we would need adds to fund site hosting and server support depending on where we go. Just an example of things I think people have bad opinions about, I will use liquidhelium as an example. He had 3 problems which were really 2 Image attribution which is part of TOU and skin and fixed width which are really one thing. The new skin isn't bad, the main problem I think is some people have seen some features they don't like so they thing the whole thing is terrible. I agree there are problems with the TOU but I reckon if we are serious enough about it we can force Wikia to let us remove it. Now some of Pharos' points. 1. Won't have to use new skin, the new skin is much better for us than monobook or vector. 2. Can reintroduce sitenotice, again this is a TOU problem we may be able to get changed. 3. More freedom, yes we will have more freedom but there is not much we want to do that we can't currently again except if it has to do with TOU, but more freedom can't hurt as long as we don't use it to much. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 07:49, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

I also forgot we will get a massive drop in traffic that I don't believe we will ever recover from. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 08:03, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
They were Brains' points in Forum:Moving the RuneScape Wiki. ^_^ - [Pharos] 08:06, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
I was saying whoever said them here. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 08:16, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
Oic - [Pharos] 08:20, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

STRONG OPPOSE - Per Sentra. Wikia has its bad points, and leaving may mean we will get that gold fansite rating we've always wanted, but Wikia does a hell of a lot for us; giving us loads of traffic, and other stuff Sentra mentioned. Staying with Wikia is more beneficial then leaving. Matt (t) 09:05, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Depends - That very much depends on if Wikia is gonna change the ToU. Also i want to have less ads, and/or the ability to select our own ads. If it is both yes, i will oppose but if it is no for either i support.
Changed to Oppose - Because we will lose very much traffic, and that is what we need to grow: they help us growing with the edits they make. We can't lose them. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 10:21, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - One of my fellow admins on the Top Gear Wiki, Knightrez, told me that Shoutwiki is a suitable alternative, he's already moved his wiki to there, however, you should know that Shoutwiki uses Monobook and is ad-supported. Explorer's ring 3.pngBtzkillerv has entered the building! Cape (blue).png 10:36, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I think that if we move away from wikia, we should not be under another host site. If we would be independent we would only need one main page ad to pay for keeping the site online, and all other ads could be removed. A new host site would probably result in more staff forcing changes to us, while we don't need a host sit, we just need someone to make a new site, add the code for the skin we want, and import the information(maybe including editcounts etc.) JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 10:46, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

STRONG Support - The changes that Wikia have made haved made the RuneScape wiki look amateurish and too much focus has been put on the social interaction elements rather than its core of being an encyclopaedia. I'd like to take this opportunity to bring up that the Battlestar Wiki http://www.battlestarwiki.com (for which i an admin there) is very interested in hosting the RuneScape Wiki. We are also an independant Wiki and have been since its inception in 2005. Wikia tried to poach us many a times but we always resisted.

The RSwiki is larger in terms of page numbers but the database size is actually smaller. We would like some information on visitors and hits but we dont forsee any issues with hosting. We would also be able to share some of the revenue with editors in the form of competitions for membership and Runescape merchandise.

The Runescape wiki would have similar numbers of advertisements and a customised theme created by us with your input and design ideas.

If people need more details about a possible move to the same server as the Battlestar Wiki then I can be contacted by email [email protected] --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 11:28, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

First: Why would we want to be hosted by the battlestar wiki?
Second: if we would, would it be runescape.battlestatwiki.com or something?
third: isn't starting a site ourselves better actually? Then we could decide what we do ourselves without having to ask you guys... JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:37, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, the Battlestar Wiki is a prime example of a successfull independant Wiki. We have the technical expertise with the MediaWiki software and know how to run a server with it on. Second: It would be hosted by the Battlestar Wiki servers but would have its own unique identity. It would NOT be subdomain, it would have it's own TLD. Usernames could be logged into both wikis however so people can edit both with the same username. Third: If you know how servers, database management and behind the scenes of MediaWiki work when go ahead and do it all yourself :). It's not easy though, thats why the RSW has been with Wikia for so long. Here is another list of moved wikis for people wondering http://awa.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Moved_wikis --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 11:44, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
:D thanks for the link. I was looking for one. - [Pharos] 12:05, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, it may be difficult, but why can't we copy the code of a hosting site and be independent? If that is not possible, i support your site as a hoster, but i got some questions first:
  1. Will we be able to select our ads?
  2. how many ads will we have?
  3. Do we have a choice what skin we want, and what are the options?
  4. If we want changes like another usergroup, will we have to ask, or will we be able to do it ourselves?
  5. Will editcounts etc. be transferred too?
  6. Same for page histories?
  7. Is there a page where i can find more information about you hosting other wikis?
  8. Can you promise you will never make a big change (like wikia did the skin) before we have agreed with it?
I hope you can answer all of my questions. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 14:33, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
I most definitely do not support this. If we move out, I want this wiki to be in complete control of what happens to it - with our community ultimately responsible for all aspects of the site. ajr 14:36, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
Well, if we can control all our ads, skin, new usergroups etc., and they will not make a big change like forcing something, i am ok with it. Unless someone can make a better site that is 100% independant. That is of course better as we don't need a profit, so we will only need 1 main page ad for keeping the site online. but Merci made me believe this is incredibly hard so if they let us be almost independant(make our own decisions) i am ok with that too. Still i repeat: i do also prefer being 100% independant. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 14:42, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean "copy the code"? The MediaWiki software is free but you cant just shove it on any old shared host and expect it to handle the amount of traffic a site of this size generates. Let me try to answer some of your questions though...
Ads. Most of the adverts on the side would be generated by Google ads. However as we have access to this we can add urls to the blocklist to remove things such as Gold farming and RWT sites. We could also use the blocklist to remove warcraft adverts for example. For a logged out user the ads would be likely to be a banner advert at the top of the page followed by sponsor images in the navigation on the left. Some pages also have keyword rollovers. You can see all this on the Battlestar Wiki. A logged in user which has donated/sponsored does not see any advertising at all. Lets get reasonable though. Initially at least no admin here would have direct access to the google account to block bad adverts. We cant allow just any old person access to this because it's what supports the entire Battlestar network. It would be run in a similar way to how it works on Tip.it where you submit bad adverts and it goes to a moderator with access. I understand the concerns Ajraddatz might have about still not being in full control but unless some people here dig seriously deep into some pockets for some cash to inject for a start-up then it aint gonna happen. You arent going to be running a site like this on $15 a month.
Skin The initial skin would likely be something very basic based on Monobook. I would expect some kind of competition from people to submit entries for which a professioanl skin could be built. The Runescape wiki would not be limited to just a background image and "wordmark".
Usergroups All this is speculating. Without a serious discussion with the admins of this wiki I cannot make any comments about this.
Edits and users All usernames and edits can be preserved, the same with page history. I'm not sure at the moment of the logistics of image histories though. There are a LOT of images hehe.
Wikis I linked to the Battlestar Wiki and am reluctant to keep posting it for fear of Wikia thinking I am spamming, we also host Wiki Frakr, the Battlestar Forum (which isnt a wiki) and a Battlestar Fanon site. Do a search.
Changes we can promise that. The Battlestar Wiki has been pretty much the same now for 5 years. --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 14:49, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
Still, although it is not $15 a month, one main page ad will probably be enough to keep it up, looking at the fact we have volunteers only and the high amount of visitors will let advertisers pay much for it, especially the main page. About the usergroups: this is another thing i would like clear. this is also for extentions etc, for example AbuseFilter and things like that. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 14:57, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
However this is no guarantee that the traffic is loyal to the editors, only to the site itself. Unless you plan on having a [[w:c:wowwiki:Special:Contributions/GourraBot|stunt like this]] pulled off, I doubt the traffic would be near 50,000 a day. Ryan PM 15:06, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
Basicly what admins can do now, they could do if they were hosted by us. That includes usergroups. As for the one advert being enough... do you have access to Wikias server logs to prove that it generates enough? The Galactica server (which runs the wiki and the blog) costs $300 a month to run. That is why we also have a few other sponsors, run paid ad-removal and occasional raffles etc. As for traffic dropping if the wiki moved, why does that really matter? The core editors would move and as this one would cease to be updated with quality information and dropped off the Jagex fansite list pretty much all people would migrate --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 15:10, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
My issue lies with the fact that people think that this Wiki would become outdated when anonymous users can continue to edit and Wikia can and will bring new admins to this wiki as they did with WoWWiki if a substantial amount of sysops left this wiki for a new site. This site will stay up and running (I can assure you of that) and most likely stay on the Silver tier of the anti-gaming advert fan site list on the RuneScape Official Forums. Ryan PM 15:17, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, that wiki costs $300 a month. How much does the main page advert cost a month? Another thing: only when donating you can hide ads? Also, Ryan does bring a good point there. we will be competitors of ourselves, resulting in less visitors. is there really no way to stop this from happening? this is really a big problem as probably people like the wikia skin better than monobook or vector, so might stay here(or less loyal people might) so this wiki will still be the #2 fansite, maybe even #1 if they manage to get enough good contributors. That is indeed a very big problem. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 15:27, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
You are right. Wikia will not allow the content of this Wiki to be truely moved, only forked away. When Wikia recruit new admins (even people who just volunteer with no experience) this wiki will continue to be edited.
However, some people have had success changing the purpose of the Wikia site. GuildWiki for example is rebranding to [email protected] which will be more fan focussed on userpages, clans, guilds and galleries etc. This is perhaps something that can be considered for this wiki too. That way the moved content becomes the Runescape Wiki and this site continues to thrive in the social interation area. Both wikis will be strong and competition minimal.
As for the banner adverts on the Battlestar Wiki... they don't cover the cost of the server. Thats precicely why we offer ad-removal membership and partner links. --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 15:41, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
Wikia will not trust us. Grand Theft Auto Wiki tried something similar to that, wherein they attempted to adapt Wikia presents Grand Theft Auto to be more focused on game modding than a simple encyclopedic summary of the game. I don't know how GTA modding works, but allegedly modding is more interesting to more people than encyclopedic information. I'd believe it since I don't care about some minor character, but modding the game to be more fun sounds nice. Anyways it didn't work, and when staff saw what they were doing, the global blocks started rolling in. If we were to attempt to change the focus of this wiki, wikia would take it as a back door attempt to remove content on this wiki. Furthermore, there is already runescapeclans wiki. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 17:03, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
You speak like wikia are chaining people to this site. If community consensus is to move, not just from a couple of admins, then the community can do what they like with the Wiki. Wikia can't dictate which articles stay and which ones go. If they mass block all the editors then this wiki will surely die anyway. Runescape is updated so often without experienced editors the site would fail. --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 17:25, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
Wikia are not chaining people to the site, but it's more likely that our viewers will want too stay using this site, rather than hunting down the new one. It's almost certain that we will lose about 75% of our traffic AT LEAST. Real Crazy 18:14, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
According to Quantcast, RuneScape Wiki has ten times as many uniques as Battlestar Wiki, and about 25 times as many impressions. Are you sure you could handle this? ʞooɔ 18:58, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
The Battlestar Wiki server has a Core 2 Quad Q8300 (2.50 GHz) CPU/1333MHz Front Side Bus processor, 4 GB DDR2-800 RAM, 500GB Hard Drive and 500GB transfer. It can also be upgraded if need be. --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 19:29, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the wiki would use much more than 500GB transfer per month; something like 3-5 TB would be in the ballpark (125kb per page, about 25 million impressions/month.) ʞooɔ 20:16, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
(editconflict)We could say this part of the discussion brought a lot of new light in the discussion. I will try to summarise this in another table:
If I forgot something, please add it. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 19:01, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if you forgot something, but you repeated some things. First, second and fourth statements in pros section are the same things, 'We can't do anything about this' shouldn't really be listed, and you said that we should put a lot of effort twice. :P bad_fetustalk 19:46, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
I changed some things in it. The double "effort" thing was like for the first is effort to be much better than the wikia wiki, and the second is effort to start up. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 14:50, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Strong support on condition - I hate wikia right now, and thanks to their stupid updates, I barely bother to edit anymore, and I'm fairly sure that's the case with several editors. I really want to move, but here are two conditions that I'm supporting: 1) A vast majority of users should be willing to move. If the community gets split, neither the wiki here nor the new one will work. If there are several people state that they will stay here, I'm neutral. 2) We should run our own wiki, not on another wikifarm or under the control of other people. Wikia used to be a great wikifarm, but the result is this. We can not trust anyone else to host the wiki, and if we aren't going to host to wiki ourselves, I strong oppose this. bad_fetustalk 15:39, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Chess, I like your view on this. HaloTalk 17:45, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

(2)

Oppose - I understand that moving might appear to be advantageous, but I really don't think that we would benefit from a move. Sure things look pretty bad right now, and most editors are furious at Wikia, but I think the wiki would fall apart should we move somewhere else. However, if the consensus is to move, I guess we'll have to somehow try to garner as much traffic as we can. Suppa chuppa Talk 17:12, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Heck, I'm not opposing this. I'm expecting "MarkvA is biased" responses, and some of these points are valid. Even though, I really hate those annoying wiki-skin ads and the new skin does have some flaws, moving a wiki isn't easy. The biggest problem the wiki will have is SEO. Google really "punishes" duplicate sites and the wiki will appear at the very bottom of search engines. And remember, 82K visitors is expensive. Mark (talk) 17:44, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Well no doubt you have more loyalty to Wikia than most of the rest of us, but I don't think that necessarily makes you biased. You bring up a very good point that we will suffer some temporary (and most likely permanent) damage no matter what. We're playing with fire here, and assuming that we aren't going to get burned in one way or another is foolhardy. HaloTalk 17:49, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose for now - Wikia has made some bad moves, like pushing their dumb skin on us and keeping the old wikis open to continue running ads, but with Wikia we retain our traffic. If we want to move, then we'll need to step our game up a bit, which we can most definitely do (WAR CRY) if the majority of our current editors want to migrate.  Tien  17:59, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - A lot of people are bringing up the issue of loosing traffic, which I too believe is going to be a huge problem. If we are going to move, we must be very deliberate about it. We need to know what will draw visitors to our new site and what will keep them there. A new skin, a new custom design, ads, paying for hosting, and making sure that our userbase moves to the new site are all things we need to discuss in detail. We also (as I'm sure someone has brought up) need to make sure that leaving this site behind does not stunt our growth if we move. If we only move half of our members, we are essentially screwed and will not be able to keep the wiki up to the standards we need in order to draw visitors. We must also think about how this will impact the community dynamic. We are going to have have users who will maintain the site just as Wikia staff has done for us up until now. How this will work into AEAE, I don't even want to know. There are so many elements to this proposed change that it would be a truly momentous undertaking, no doubt greater than any project we have ever even attempted. I'm not quite ready to give my opinion yet, but I will say that I will stay with the community no matter what we decide to do. --Aburnett(Talk) 20:17, December 1, 2010 (UTC)


Comment - Similar concerns about losing traffic and viewers have been made at some of the other large wikis that have moved away from Wikia. But we need to remember the core purpose of the Runescape wiki which is a Runescape encyclopedia that anyone can edit. This is not a social networking site, nor is it a place for people to write blogs nor a place to profit from content and yet this is EXACTLY what wikia are trying to turn this into. They force new "features" such as the adding of uploader usernames to thumbnail images and the soon to be implemented category images and similar pages which, while increasing page views doesn't go to anything useful. The aim of this is not to drive people to relevant content (that is what the search and body of the articles is for) it is to create more ad impressions. Each page has adverts including user and talk pages and wikia doesn't care where you view them. Some of the other concerns such as Google page rank are invalid and dis-proven by looking at the rank of the new forked sites already on the front page of google search after only a short period. This is more than being angry at the skin, its about Wikia taking control over the content written by us and monetising it. Seeing the screen shots of those warcraft adverts shocks me. I wonder and worry what's coming next. The time is right to splinter off prove we are a proper fansite not just a few pages on a free host. With the right setup we can have proper contact with Jagex and maybe one day hope to get a gold or platinum status as a fansite.

This really would be the biggest thing top ever happen to the wiki but if people are serious about wanting to go independent then we can help. We are NOT a wiki-farm and revenue split is most definitely something that can be discussed. The future for the RunescapeWiki can be so bright, don't let it be snubbed. Moving offsite would be just the start. Imagine. --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 20:31, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Some links to the WowWiki leaving discussion and the GTA wiki which might useful as it shares pretty much every concern anyone has ever posted on here. It didnt stop them leaving --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 20:41, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
Also in regard to lost traffic, we should keep in mind that we could do a lot to use other means to move people to a new site, such as link exchanges with other fansites, and perhaps further discussion with Jagex. --Aburnett(Talk) 20:39, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
Once the links to the wiki are updated to the new location on twitter, facebook, other big fansites, the official runescape site etc then google soon updates accordingly --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 20:41, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
The numbers just don't work. Wowpedia is operating with between 10 and 15 percent of the traffic WowWiki has. GrandTheftWiki has about 2-3%. The simpsons? I can't tell, because the traffic on the ShoutWiki version is too low to estimate. ʞooɔ 21:25, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Had a quick look at the WoWWiki site, and it's still being edited, despite them leaving Wikia. That's the problem which they've highlighted for us to learn from - even if the community leaves, people still use the .wikia site. It's likely that those people have no idea the site's even moved. Basically, GF traffic. Real Crazy 21:18, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Where could add 'The wiki has left' to Template:News and [[MediaWiki:Community-corner/message]]. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 21:31, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
Wikia has removed such notices from other moved wikis.Guthix's Book of Balance.pngUFeelNoPainTalkFiremaking 22:28, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
The notices were removed because they contained a link to the external site. Wikia has said that we could put a notice up which said some editors have moved with a link to a discussion page which itself contains the link. I was thinking that we would put it on the main page, on top of the recent changes, and in the community corner, where it would remain for now less than one month. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 22:38, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Here's a couple of names:

  • Wikirune
  • RuneWiki
  • RSWiki
  • Rspedia

--中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 02:04, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

...those are all terrible... ajr 02:07, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
I could live with the first, though the rest are short-hand forms of the wikis current name, which would cause quite a bit of confusion. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 02:11, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
"runescapewiki.blah"? (.org, I'm hoping but is owned by some nubs) Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 02:49, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Wikia probably won't let us pick the name for the wiki if we're leaving. Their general tone from other wikis which left is, "if you're going to leave then you no longer have any right to determine anything about the wiki you worked so hard to create and that we are only keeping so as not to lose the ad revenue". They didn't use those words exactly, but you know how they are. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 03:44, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
If we leave, they have no say in what we call it... Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 03:56, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
No no sir. If we move, we will keep the name "RuneScape Wiki", and Wikia presents RuneScape would be the one getting the name change. That happened in the GTA wiki. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 04:55, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
I own the domain runescapewiki.net ;) -07:42, December 2, 2010 (UTC)  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mercifull (talk).
Why? Seriously, why would you go and do that? ajr 14:11, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Better to be in the hands of an active wikian than in the hands of a domain sitter like the .com and .org ones --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 15:48, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - In 2007, we had the wiki for a certain online MMORPG. It was so good that the game devs went to it for info. The game company decided to host it itself and connect it to its in-game help system. Due to a license restriction (the original wiki had the Creative Commons noncommercial clause), the company set its wiki up anew from scratch, but with much of the community from the original wiki. Today, the company wiki has many more editors and readers; the independent wiki still survives, but as the lesser of the two. The game is GuildWars, the wikis are [[w:c:guildwars]], recently guildwiki.org, and wiki.guildwars.com. If Jagex is willing to give you a comparable push or maybe host you themselves (it'd be easier because your license allows using the content as-is), this situation could in fact be a win for you all and an improvement over the Wikia situation. Wouldn't it be nice to be wiki.runescape.com? Has anyone asked Jagex yet? --◄mendel► 06:18, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea, seeing as how that would put us under Jagex's thumb. I'm not saying jagex is evil or would be a detriment to the wiki, but they could impose some policies and use their status as our host to make changes. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 07:13, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Per teh robawt, I don't want Jagex to be able to pull our strings. ajr 14:11, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think Jagex will attempt to push us around too much... But i do know that all credibility we had about controversies, glitches, scams and the like will go out the window. But we will be pretty well trusted about new info and game mechanics. Even if we aren't told by Jagex, people will naturally assume that we have been. And i think our vandal rate will increase, with randoms attempting to rant at/flame Jagex in a way that was not possible with just the forums. - [Pharos] 14:22, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
First of all, I can say without that this would never happen. It would mean that we would be the official fansite, which would obviously majorly piss off the communities of every other RuneScape/Jagex fansite in existence. Besides all that, though, I do not want to be controlled by Jagex. Fansites are supposed to be independent. What happens when Jagex decides they have a "great new idea" for us (comparing this to the Oasis skin) and we have no choice but to use it? Are we going to start ranting and threatening to leave again? Andrew talk 21:27, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Weak Support - Little small things overtime that bugged me about Wikia include their shannigans with Oasis, TLUL, altering the ToU, and server downtime (when you get the message that says the page has been locked for editing, blah blah). Wikia has shown that they are disillusioned with what a wiki should be like with those annoying features of Oasis. However, if someone where to clearly outline who would be the new hosts and the transition steps that users would have to take for the move, I would be more willing to support this. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 12:21, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Server maintenance would happen occasionaly if this wiki were hosted independant of wikia or not. The key points in the argument for/against are if people are happy with the direction Wikia as a company is moving wikis into. This is about more than just a skin, its about forced features and loss of control. Two new unwanted features have been added today, similar pages, and category galleries. And the next rumored feature which I saw on another wiki was that image attribution will be added to the gallery tag soon too. --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 12:37, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Traffic and what happens to the community are pretty important too. We're discussing getting rid of the related pages thing here. As for the attribution thing, I smell an oppurtunity to rant. Real Crazy 17:31, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Wikia's lack of regard for our needs as an encyclopedia is really unacceptable, and is a detriment to the quality of our site. Being able to be in absolute control of our site would be a very good thing. --Aburnett(Talk) 19:53, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Whilst it may seem like a good idea to have independence, especially given Wikia's recent profiteering actions, the implication of it and the results may turn out worse for it. If we move to another wikifarm, we'd be placing ourselves under their juristiction, and from what I can tell, few if any editors have any experience and skills running an independent wiki. Also, surely with careful negotiation we can negate some of the effects of the changes, such as seeing about getting rid of the WOW advertisements (perhaps replace them with adverts that aren't competative to our aims if possible). Already we have reintroduced sitenotice and are currently in the process of removing the related pages. I will support if you do move, but I will not leave this wiki to the mercy of vandals and who knows what else. What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 20:38, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose 16px‎AtlandyBeer.png 18:53, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

No reason, eh? 78.86.94.44 19:25, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
You need to supply a reason. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 22:24, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
He does not. The purpose of this thread is to see how the community feels about moving, if he doesn't think we should he can just put oppose. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 22:27, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
Because Jeff always gives a reason... ʞooɔ 22:52, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
Atlandy has a tendency to simply state his opposition and leave it at that. I've always assumed this to be a shorthand version of "Per above". Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 22:59, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

If you would like me reasoning here it is: First, if we move we will lose most of the users. I don't know about you, but I do not want to start all over again. I have been with this wiki for quite some time and would hate to have to rebuild 16k pages over again. Second, so what about the ad's. I use the basic skin (which means no ad's). Wikia has to make money by selling ad space. I can see removing ad's that encourage cheating in RS, but they advertise WoW? I remember Runescape itself advertising other online games at one point. You think anyone is going to come to our site, look at an ad, and say "you know what...F runescape. That ad sold me!"? Is the new wiki that everyone wants to move to ad free? If so, how are making any money? You think someone wants to host all of our pages for fun? If any editors want to move sites, and do not like this one, then by all means go. This is not the only one out there 16px‎AtlandyBeer.png 14:42, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

It's a semi automated process to move those 16k pages. Noone would need to rewrite or copy and paste any pages manually. This is about more than just the theme and adverts. Its about regaining the control of the content people have written over the last 5 years and getting back on track for the goal of being a wiki as opposed to a blog and social network like Wikia are moving us into despite all the complaints. --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 15:36, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
While I am not concerned about moving the pages as much as losing the users. We have built a nice community here and to pick up and move it to somewhere else is really going to effect that. What will happen to this site? Will it shut down? or will some stay and some go? If it does shut down, what is stopping someone from making another with Wikia? I really don't understand why the need to move. So the adverts are annoying...any other site is going to be better? Maybe when we start, but they will have to generate revenue at some point. You don't like the way Wikia is heading?...We have had pretty good control on what we want to add and what not to add. Once again, if we go to a new host who is to say we won't wind up in the same boat a year from now. If it isn't broke..why fix it. If it is that broke to anyone, go find a host that will allow you to do whatever you want and start your own wiki. 16px‎AtlandyBeer.png 19:29, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support - If we move we COULD make it work,We would exchange links with other fansites,We would Be jagex supported still.(If they continued to support the wikia one then they would be basically supported a completely different wiki.) We would ally with other fansites,Even if we don't get all of the old community,we would still get new members! So what if we lose Some viewers,This isnt about how many views we get,this is about our SOUL.We can make this work! Mercifull,Would you work on an example of The wiki if we were to get battlestar hosting?,Being able to see it and stuff will be useful before we move.We cant go and move all at once,we have to do this in steps! Battleben 10:22, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not gonna setup the RSwiki on the BSwiki servers unless there is community concensus. We are talking about gigabites of data --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 15:36, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
Listen, Mercifull, the BSWiki is not RSWiki. We shouldn't share servers either. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 16:10, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
No need to get lairy about it. It was a serious offer. The BSwiki server has plenty of capacity, we barely use 10% of it. It was a serious offer to host the RSwiki as part of a revenue sharing deal. My opinion is that the wiki needs to move away from Wikia regardless if its hosted by us (bswiki), someone else or independent (people here paying for a $500 a month server etc) --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 16:40, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
I'm real worried. We need to be as independent as possible. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 18:44, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support - i don't normal do this type of thing, but wikia has gone way to far! i know i only seen the image, but the image is a clear example of why we should get off wikia host! and i looked at site traffic, we lost 45% because of this update, 45%!!! unacceptable! so i support this, for the good of the runescape wikia community! --Project Myface Parsonsda Talk | Sign Here | Project Myface Project Myface 19:22, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Parsons...what are you talking about? We didn't lose 45% of our site traffic. If we move we will most likely lose over 90%. HaloTalk 19:53, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
I don't know where you guys are pulling those statistics from because they are complete rubbish. The Grand Theft Wiki and Wowpedia are thriving! There are more quality edits and pages on the forks than the Wikias. If it's a community decision to leave then the quality editors, the people who contribute the most, will move too --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 20:07, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
1 VS 2 and 3 VS 4 and 5 VS 6... Mark (talk) 20:20, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
Quantcast hasnt been logging those for long enough yet and the Simspsons wiki isnt even real data! The only one you can really compare is WoWWiki and Wowpedia. The forked site has only been active for a few weeks and it already has over half a million hits and the direction of the graph for traffic is going up. And like I said before, it really doesn't matter if the traffic drops, this isnt about page views and ad-impressions, it's about having quality and up to date information. If only 10% of users make up 90% of edits then if those high edit count people move then no amount of traffic will make up for the fact that its of substandard quality. The traffic arguments are moot. If the community wishes to leave then it doesn't matter if this site has 20x the traffic it will soon go out of date and be used by less and less people. --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 21:28, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
Quantcast may not have the exact data, but its estimates are usually pretty close. Believe me, if a site has over 1K traffic Quantcast will be close... Anyways, I just provided the data. I'm not really in a mood to discuss anything right now :P. Mark (talk) 21:30, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
Comment Interestingly, you assume that all the "quality editors" will move too. What makes you say that? 16px‎AtlandyBeer.png 21:42, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
For the numbers discussion, I don't think the pageviews are as important as the community notion to move. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 14:31, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support - As per thread creator.

Bonziiznob Talk

20:27, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Make you Think - here something you might like to know about moving, we as a wikia have loads of bots, loads of people who know there codes, and loads of editors, with all this we can make a wikia better then wikia! --Project Myface Parsonsda Talk | Sign Here | Project Myface Project Myface 22:29, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

We're a Wiki, not a Wikia, Wikia is the name of the company that hosts us. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 22:57, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
Bots are not unique to Wikia hosted wikis. If someone has coded a bot to work on this site then it could be adapted with a few code changes to work on a new site. Something interesting to add is that if the editors who run some of the bots such as GE updater move to the new site, would they keep the bot running here too or only have it working on the new site? That's something to consider because it would be an advantage of using the new site over the old one as it would have more accurate information (at least until someone on wikia coded a replacement bot). --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 09:15, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I saw this thread, and decided to pop in and comment. I'm not even going to try reading the 65 kilobytes that this page is at so far, but I have read the initial proposal. I have to say, after seeing that advertisement, and screenshots of others like it, there is no decision. Our aim is to be the ultimate resource for all things RuneScape. No matter how you look at it, we simply cannot do that at Wikia, for all of the reasons stated above. Yes, we will lose traffic if we move. Yes, we will split people between two wikis. But the new wiki will be the better wiki, and it will earn back its traffic — and a better rating with Jagex, leading to even more traffic — by being a better resource. This isn't a competition for traffic — the RuneScape Wiki is nonprofit, regardless of the goals of the company that hosts it. This is an effort to be the best resource we can be, to help as many people as possible. In my opinion, splitting from Wikia is absolutely critical in order to do that.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 07:14, December 5, 2010 (UTC) 

(3)

Comment - I thought of something. Is it possible to make a site, that has a better skin, and less ads, which just transcludes all every page on the Wikia RSWiki? That way, we don't have the annoying ads, we will be higher ranked in the Jagex fansite list(if we block other game ads) and we won't lose traffic. Here's some further explaination: We have a different site, for example rswiki.com or something, and there we have some transclusion thing, so all articles on the wikia rswiki automatically are at the rswiki.com, and if you click edit, you are linked to the edit screen on wikia(in a new tab), so we still have as much editors and also block ads we don't like, not have a fixed screen etc.

In my opinion, this has all benefits (blocking ads we dislike, bigger screen width, sitenotice) and we have (almost) no disadvantages (reaching as much people(maybe more because of higher Jagex ranking), we don't have to start over with editing etc., we don't lose editors, we don't have another strong competitor, it doesn't matter we might be lowest on search engine results: this wiki will stay as high).

So i'd like to know if this is possible, and what you guys think of it. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 12:21, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

If we have to come back to this wiki to edit, it completely defeats the purpose of splitting off. If we were to do this, I would never go to the new wiki at all. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 13:17, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
Well, because people hate the ads and the fixed screen, they would probably go to the new wiki. It doesn't defeat the purpose of splitting off. The benefit is that you don't have those 2 things. Why would you not go to the new wiki? it is just the editing that happens here. And maybe Quarenon can make something like his JS GEPrice updator: that you can edit on the other site, but still it changes the wikia wiki. The thing is, we actually can't become independent, because then we lose an enormous amount of editors, which means we will be obsolete very quickly. The power of a wiki is that evryone can edit, and that makes it the fastest updating fansite of them all. If we lose 75% of our editors, we won't be fast anymore, and we will soon be obsoleter and obsoleter, while this wiki will continue to grow about as quickly as it does now. If we transclude, and make edits to this wiki, we will continue to grow there too, and we also provide the good layout and less ads. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 13:30, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
Short answer... no. Would still require a dedicated server to process it all you might as well fork completely. You can't just transclude gigabytes of data easily. --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 13:50, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
You'd essentially be leeching off the original wiki and all edits on the new wiki would only be a mirrored copy with transclusions. Think this defeats the purpose of moving. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 14:35, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
I agree. The options are stay or move completely. I doubt a mirror is allowed by Wikia anyway. If the wiki forks off it will have no link between the old site and new site. --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 09:11, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean "allowed"? how could they forbid this while they can't stop lots of wikis moving away? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 09:53, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
Wikia uses the CC-BY-SA licence which means you can take the content from this wiki and use it on your own site (or a forked wiki). However you can't just wrap your own adverts around content which is hosted on THIS wiki. Every time you requested a page on a hypothetical mirror it would pull/transclude the information from this wiki and then display its own adverts instead of Wikias. This isnt fair as it uses the processing and bandwidth resources from Wikia but gives them no income from adverts. The difference with a fork is that you copy the content from this site and put it on an entirely new site which is on a server owned by you. If you edited a page on Wikia the equivalent page would not automatically update on a "new" independant wiki unless someone did it manually. And vice versa. --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 11:02, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - For those worried about the postion of a possible "new" Runescape Wiki and how Jagex might support it should have a look here to a forum post on the WowWiki (wikia site) entitled WoWWiki's death blow? Blizzard tacitly endorses Wowpedia. --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 13:05, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comment Here is the discussion when Guildwars left (or tried to leave, I have no idea of the result) Wikia [2]. Some the main issues I saw while skimming the article is who is going to pay for the new wiki? You cannot put on every page that the wiki has moved here if any editor wants to stay.. I am not anti-move but there are a few issues that we really have to look at if we do. First is cost. Wikia provides a free host with unlimited pages. Everything I saw on the guildwars site led to some discussion about money. If someone has another free wiki out there then great, however i would assume that they generate their revenue through ads, which is the reason we are leaving in the first place. Second is familiarity. Many Runescape players know this wiki and use it. We are listed on wikipedia and on the official site. I would assume that the new site would no be able to be added to both of them immediately. Asking them to move another one may be asking alot. Third, this wiki will not be "shut down" and our new one will replace it. There will be 2 wikis essentially. There will be some admins and editors who go and some that stay. 16px‎AtlandyBeer.png 14:04, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

At the Battlestar Wiki we pay for the server from a combination of banner advertisements, direct sponsorship (dealing with companies who want to advertise directly) and paid-ad removal (users donate and see less ads for a year). Like I said before there is capacity on the server to host the RSwiki there, but equally the RSwiki can go it completely seperate, makes no difference to me. I just think it is the right time for the rswiki community to go independant and leave Wikia. You are 100% right about there being two wikis however. That's why it must be a community decision to move or stay. Some people will always choose to stay. The key is to find a harmony of direction. Wikia is moving the RSwiki into a more social experience with blogs and attribution etc. The "new" Runescape Wiki could drop some of the features currently in place here such as offtopic forums and strength its role in becoming the most accurate and up to date encyclopedia. There is no reason why the two sites cannot coexist. --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 14:24, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
p.s. GuildWiki chose to leave and rename the old site as [email protected] --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 14:32, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
So simply my main concerns are: What is going to prevent the new site we are moving to giving us the same advertisement issues we are having here? It is safe to assume that bandwith cost money and that money has to come from somewhere. If ad's are the main issue, why can't the basic plain skin be our default one? (I am not the tech savvy wikian and only use the basic one anyway) Also We have seen the comments of 30 or so wikians on this discussion, is it to be expected that the other (how ever many) editors to jump ship and go to the new site? Also I have seen the new features here such as page comments and blog features, but we have asked them to be disabled and they are. What is to say the new site will not also have those features in the future? The way I look at it is simple: We are thinking of moving to a new site that now offers what we want, but if they grow (much like Wikia did and I am sure they would hope that they do) What is to say they will not put everything we didn't want (ad's, social media) onto their site?. 16px‎AtlandyBeer.png 14:37, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
Wikia are hosting thousands possibly tens of thousands of wikis. They have created a single one size fits all solution for their ad-revenue because it makes good business sense to do so. If the rswiki moved to another wikifarm then your concerns might be valid, who knows for example what ShoutWiki or Wikii might do next to all their hosted wikis. I certainly would oppose the wiki going to another wikifarm where similar issues would undoubetly prop up at some point. However going independant or going into partnership with another independant wiki (such as bswiki or guildwiki) means you are incredibly unlikely to be faced with the same advertising and unwanted feature woes. As for the default monobook skin on wikia, this cannot be made the default skin for members or logged out users. People have to manually set it. Who knows when the ToU might change to disallow monobook completely... --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 14:53, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
Wikia will always be keeping Monobook, btw. Also, the main reason that I oppose this is that we would have a divided community - something which isn't good for anything. ajr 16:40, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Dividing the community would be detrimental to the project. I understand that many editors do not like the new skin (neither do I), but it can be avoided by logging in and switching to Monobook. I personally log in whenever I read pages for this reason, and I have done so since Monobook was removed as the default skin. Monobook enables the sitenotice, removes image attribution, and lacks the issues with the ads and fixed screen. It should be pointed out that Monaco was also controversial when it was first released, but Wikia editors have become used to it. The same thing might happen with the new skin. Dtm142 23:08, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, when did Monaco come out? I've always disliked Monobook, even moreso than Oasis (yes) Lol. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 23:33, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
I think the main concern is the ads. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 23:36, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
June 2008. Ryan PM 05:36, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

To both Dtm and Atlandy - You are both oversimplifying the issue. It is not simply that we don't like the skin and need to get used to it, nor is it just that the ads have gotten more obtrusive. It is the entire culture that wikia is cultivating, one where the needs of the community are subservient to the needs of sponsors, where the experience of using the wiki is considered over the presentation of information, and where we are stripped of our identity by being forced to all use one skin, and being forbidden from changing it in any significant way. All the individual problems, the ads, the skin, the terms of use, are all caused by wikia's attitude towards wikis. Every issue stems from that, and while all the individual issues can be dealt with, the simple fact remains that the control of our wiki is in the hands of someone who doesn't care what a wiki should be, only how profitable it can be made. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 02:52, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

Question - This has nothing to do with us leaving Wikia, but what's with the sections on this thing? Matt (t) 06:01, December 9, 2010 (UTC)

Its so people can edit just a section instead of the whole thing. Editing the whole page can cause lag so people edit sections instead. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 06:07, December 9, 2010 (UTC)

Undecided/Comment Opposed - We have had the exact same arguments on HabboWiki, we gotta love Wikia but, we now have to be ready for awful updates (Similar to puppets?). So, what we are doing is transferring to our own site, just to see if it works out. I have been talking to the owner and co-owner of GTW (Grand Theft Auto Wiki) of the system through MediaWiki, allowing a smooth transfer to a new site. It was pointed out that when WOWwiki moved, they lost 85% of their traffic, this only happened because there was no hardly any information given about the move- go ahead, look on their Wikia site- It looks like it's still the only one active. Anyways, I still believe Wikia is in it's early stages of Oasis, I suggest we all wait a little longer (just in case we do move, we don't want to debate again on moving back). Imdill3Zanik old.png 13:14, December 9, 2010 (UTC)

I think it's more than just a matter of not announcing that the "wiki" was moving. Of course, contrary to what the current site notice of this site says, it's not the wiki that would move; it's the people. That's been pointed that out before, elsewhere and in this thread. (That's more an issue of how the site notice is worded, I think.)
What I think is a more accurate characterization of the other Wikia wikis is that the "cool kids" discuss themselves leaving; they decide to leave; then they leave. Subsequently they are perplexed that the "dweebs" didn't follow them. That's more like megalomania than lack of advertising. To the extent that admins have a high standing in this community, it's because they're admins. It's not because they are community leaders, in any sense. People don't come to this site because they like your charisma. Few, if any, will follow you if you leave.

None of that stops anyone from setting up another site elsewhere. Anyone can do that at any time, anyway. However, it's going to be more like starting over from scratch than some mass migration of an adoring flock. If this site withers because the admins leave, the people who come here will probably go to tip.it or runehq or some other site that is already established and flourishing. Good luck on your endeavor, though. Achieving success can be a fragile process. --Saftzie (talk) 22:46, December 9, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate that response. But yeah, I agree with all of that. I would honestly imagine it as (Step 1) Transferring all data and (Step 2) having Runescape.Wikia closed. However, I'm sure Wikia would have a problem with removing a huge part of their community. (Err, maybe It should have been thought about sooner before the controversy?). Imdill3Zanik old.png 02:39, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
This wiki would not be closed if we were to move.--Degenret01 03:16, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
I apologize if I didn't say some things well enough. Degenret01 has it right when I say people might move, but the wiki stays. Others have said it, too, so there are probably diminishing returns in continuing to say it. Also, when I wrote "you" I meant anyone who might be reading this thread and deciding to leave, not any specific person, such as Imdill3. --Saftzie (talk) 09:44, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I got that you meant "you" as in general. But yeah, I have been doing more reasearch into how the Wikia one stays. (SOrry that's phrased really bad)... But, It really messes things up in a way: A good percent leaves and a good percent stays causing more work to be done on both sites. For example: (Not real Sites) *someepicgame.wikia.com writes a huge, well done, article on on the Wikia site.
  • someepicgame.org wirtes the same article a week later from scratch again, written in the same style and just as good.
  • Both wikis have just wasted tons of time and pretty much wrote the article twice now.

But, thats my concern. So after that, I am opposed moving. Imdill3Zanik old.png 16:06, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

Support Chess - After reading this over, Chess's statement rings the most true to me, and I support that plan of action. Amascut symbol.png Amascut Ia Morte 15:38, December 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - This will probably divide the wiki. I want to research who wants to move or no, so we can use this information to see if we really should move or not. 中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 22:00, December 9, 2010 (UTC)

-- People moving please sign below --

  1. 中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话

-- People staying please sign below --

  1. 中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话
I'll direct your attention to RS:NOT#Democracy. Additionally, having a formal poll of which users will and will not be moving does nothing - it is obvious from looking at the comments whether or not it is a good idea. ajr 22:00, December 9, 2010 (UTC)
I KNOW! READ CAREFULLY MORON! THIS IS NOT A VOTE! THIS IS TO TELL EXACTLY HOW MANY MORE PEOPLE WANT TO STAY SO WE CAN DETERMINE CONSENSUS. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 13:32, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
Uh how many people vote each way is democracy, we don't determine consesnus using votes, it's based on what everyone has said in the discsussion. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 13:52, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Comment and query - The way that Wikia is filling our pages with adverts, making them smaller and even the removal of the Monaco skin are small things which are displeasing me. Moving away would mean we would have full control over our side, but if we do, can we still use Wiki software? Construction-icon.png Matt is Me / Harmonising / Lvl 3 skils3 Talk Cooking cape (t).png 22:27, December 9, 2010 (UTC)

"Wiki software" do you mean "MediaWiki"? If so, yes for the most part (some things are Wikia only). Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 22:46, December 9, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - ----クールネシトーク 22:29, December 9, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your well explained reason. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 22:46, December 9, 2010 (UTC)
If a reason is not provided, then it is assumed that is just "per above". Construction-icon.png Matt is Me / Harmonising / Lvl 3 skils3 Talk Cooking cape (t).png 23:00, December 9, 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome Evil Wink ----クールネシトーク 22:05, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support - All this domination Wikia has been doing lately is not wiki-like. We're not a blog, a home for adverts, or group to make Wikia money. We are a knowledge base. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 22:46, December 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Buying a website domain and using it surely would not cost a severe amount. If we could find someone who could afford and be willing to pay for the hosting costs, then I think we could go ad-free completely if we moved. Construction-icon.png Matt is Me / Harmonising / Lvl 3 skils3 Talk Cooking cape (t).png 23:00, December 9, 2010 (UTC)

There's no doubt that we could pull a tidy profit; my recent calculations peg the number at around $20,000 a month. However, we have other things to worry about besides money. ʞooɔ 23:04, December 9, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - While I completely understand your reasoning for this, there's simply too many cons attributed with this proposal. I, too, am very upset with Wikias lack of listening to its customers, and think they are attempt to just get a profit instead of actually helping communities. The new ToS is horrid and image attribution is against our wiki, while not even having a point! But moving has too many issues. Firstly, I know of no such way to move images without server access, something we do not have. I tried once to mass move some wikia pages, and was disgruntedly met with the lack of images. With thousands of images, we cannot hope to possibly move them all manually, and I have no clue if our bots will be compatable with another wiki. Nextly, this is the domain we've been at for as long as I can remember, and as many have pointed out, we'd end up getting our users split because people wouldn't realize that the site has moved, we may not be able to well tell the users that the site is moved, and having "outdated" pages will give negative rep. There's also all the links on other sites on the internet that all point to the wikia site. As much as we would benefit from a new site (those WoW-RSwiki images are horrendous!), the cons still are swarmingly present, and besides, if we unite stong enough against wikia's decisions, who knows? (ok, maybe that didn't work so well for stopping the new theme, but who's to say they can't see the light again? I urge you wikia, to turn back from your evil ways!) Hofmic Talk 03:49, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Moving the wiki is a non issue. Its easy to do a database dump including images and then upload to a new server running MediaWiki. I dont know where Cook pulled that $20k out from but that's rubbish. We already run an independent wiki on a $500 a month server of which we use about 10% capacity of, adverts dont even break even which is why we offer a $10 a year ad-removal subscription etc. I've explained all this earlier on this discussion. We have offered to host the wiki as part of a revenue sharing deal if the community wants to move. --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 14:26, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
Cook was talking about how much money we could make from adverts if we retained our current traffic, I believe. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 17:03, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
Oh right. Well I still thanks that's very unlikely. The RuneScape Wiki (potentially http://rswiki.org) would undoubtedly make more money than the Battlestar one but I doubt it would take 40x the revenue --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 18:46, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
Also, one of my biggest fears is that we'll, without doubt, lose our place on the google search rankings, and that will MASSIVELY cause a drop in web traffic. One of our best features is how high ranked we are in google, and google is probably one of the most common ways for users to find out about this site. Of course, I will migrate with the wiki shall it move, but what would happen if we have a community split between two "separate" sites? And on a further note, perhaps this page should be broken into archives? This one section alone is so long I am lagging when typing and submitting an edit takes an eon. Hofmic Talk 04:01, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
From your edits, I see your using the Rich Text Editor which is what is making you lag while typing. Disable at Special:Preferences#prefsection-3 (uncheck "Enable Rich Text Editing"). Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody!
It doesn't take long to build back up the google rankings. The other moved wikis are already ranking highly after only a few weeks. --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 14:26, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
What are you smoking (and where can I get some!)? You're right, it doesn't take long to build up Google results - if you are the only site on your topic. However, in this case, there would be another RuneScape Wiki which is hosted by one of the top 200 sites on the internets. That is competition, and I can say with 100% certainty that we could never surpass the Wikia wiki. Additionally, none of this even matters since it is obvious that this move would divide the community between here and a new wiki. No matter what Wikia's problems are, I am not willing to have that happen. ajr 14:44, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - if we move, it wont affect the traffic, sure it be low at first but over 1 month or 2 it come back to normal, as we are still runescape wiki, and we still are known by loads, so it wont affect traffic if you think about it, it just be a slow start :) --Project Myface Parsonsda Talk | Sign Here | Project Myface Project Myface 14:37, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

No, it will permanently effect our traffic. For example, when I searched World of Warcraft, Wowpedia isn't even on the first page yet, and it has been over a month. ajr 14:45, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
People know the RuneScape Wiki, but unless we tell them, they won't know us. If we move, Wikia will forbid us from telling anyone in any attention grabbing way, and any notice we are allowed to put up will probably be soon removed. Far earlier than we would like. Wikia has us trapped. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 17:03, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Question - I've read a lot about how our traffic will dip if we move. I've been wondering about why this is such a big issue. When I make the few edits I do, I make them because I want the page on the topic to be correct (to the best of my knowledge on the topic). I don't wonder about how many people will read it. I contend that many editors on this wiki are of a similar mind and simply derive satisfaction from creating accurate, informative pages about topics related to RuneScape. If a new, independent wiki is established with the vast majority of editors, while the old one suddenly has a massive drop in editing, I can see the current wiki very rapidly falling out of both date and favour.

The NetHack wiki, which left Wikia in early November (10th/11th) placed a template at the top of most pages informing users that the community had moved and that the Wikia site would no longer continue to be updated. I have to believe that even the average internet user is capable of understanding such information. With sufficient redirection (e.g updating Wikipedia, Facebook pages etc), in addition to the closer links likely to be enjoyed with Jagex as a result of our then controlling the ads and such like, I think a significant portion of traffic can be successfully taken to a new wiki.

I don't believe arguments related to the amount of traffic the WoW wiki fork has received are yet valid. It's been less than two months since the new site was established. We don't know how Google works inside, we have no idea how long changes like this take to fully propagate through its system. Perhaps after six months or a year we might have a better picture of exactly what the schism did to them.

To finally close the loop: I think we can successfully redirect much of the current wiki's traffic, though it might take a while. Even if we never recover all the traffic we had (and here's the invoiced question), so what? We'll have a pleasant-to-use and up-to-date wiki with no external influence and probable closer links with Jagex. Sounds good to me. Ardougne cloak 4.png Raging Bull Talk 15:49, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

While I disagree that losing the traffic isn't a problem, if we can get the vast majority of editors to move, we shouldn't lose a huge part of our traffic since this wiki would be out of date, and since we could get Jagex to increase our fansite rank, our traffic would slowly get higher than it currently is. However, if we do not get the majority to move, the community will be split, and both wikis will not work. bad_fetustalk 18:07, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
I am shocked that wikia allowed Netwiki to do that, and I have a suspicion that if we attempted it we would have much more resistance/restriction given that we are one of the biggest wikis here, and are probably in the top 5 revenue generators. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 20:53, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - In case you guys don't know, Image Attribution, Related Pages and Category Gallery are now all fully optional. Mark<helper /> (talk) 19:50, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Strong support - I would agree with the move - a wiki needs to be able to govern itself, and these WoW adverts display just how little control we have at the moment. A movement would prevent things like this spoiling our reputation. Rune battleaxe.png RangedwhipRune battleaxe.png 20:12, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Strongly Support - All of this has been said before, but the forced theme changes, Related pages and in-line image attributions go against what I understood "wiki" to mean: providing information for little to no recognition. Having a non-ad supported site similar to Wikipedia, for instance, would give better load times for unregistered users, and just look more professional. The community here is superb, but our host is limiting our visibility in the whole RuneScape community. We're lumped in with "the other MMO" in the eyes of Wikia. We had a good run with Wikia, but now is the time to move on and grow.Quest point cape.png LedZepMtG (talk) Zaros symbol.png 21:04, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Would like to add that the relatedpages and image attribution are now optional. ʞooɔ 21:08, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
I don't care if its optional now. The fact that image attribution was ever mandatory is a terrible thing. What's worse is it was still mandatory even after weeks and weeks of people saying it was terrible in the preview or whatever. In my opinion, the capitulation doesn't show a willingness to listen to the community, but an unwillingness to lose add revenue associated with people leaving in disgust. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 22:23, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - First off, if we were to change hosts, we wouldn't be able to remove all of our articles and stuff on the old wiki, which would mean that we would likely be competing against ourselves as there would still be users on the old wiki, regardless of any decision to change hosts. Plus, if we were to change hosts, we could very possibly lose most of our traffic, which would be likely something that we'd never recover from. Also, there's the problem of where we would move, since if we were to join another wiki farm, there's always the possibility of the wiki farm pulling a "Wikia", which would leave us in the same situation we are in now. We could always host ourselves, but then we'd actually have to pay for everything instead of having Wikia pay all the costs like they're doing now, and if you've never paid for the cost and upkeep of a huge site like the RuneScape Wiki, then you should think long and hard about that before deciding on whether we should move or not. To be honest, even though many people are saying we've got it bad here with Wikia, I personally feel that hosting ourselves would effectively amount to signing our own death warrant as a wiki, and since I don't feel like watching everything we have worked for as a wiki go down the drain, I am strongly opposing this proposal and will personally stay here on the "real" RuneScape Wiki long after everyone else has left. [3] N7 Elite (Ready to talk now?) 22:27, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Strong support - I'd love a wiki without huge world of warcrap ads splattered all around and sponsors listed on the bottom of every page. Every few months wikia keeps adding more and more ads. It would also be cool to have our own domain name. It's just gonna be hard to let everyone know there will be a new website, and it seems with wikia's unwillingness to let us leave, there will be a lotta inconveniences as I read in the main thing, but we gotta take care of that. Dragon claw.png Zezzima Talk Edit # SkillsFile:Turmoil.gif|Yay turmoil! 22:39, December 10, 2010 (UTC)


Strong Support - Per Bull, if we are to adequately notify our readership that we are leaving Wikia and give them a link to our new URL, they will most likely click that link and start to use the new, current version. Of course some of the users would stay here, and, since we have the higher Google ranking at Wikia, get more new traffic. Bull has a good point in that we will have a more current version, since most prominent users and upkeepers here are saying that they will be coming to the new Wiki, if one ever comes (and I make an assumption that even some of those that opposed, unless plainly stating that they would be staying, will be coming too). Also, if we could have ads on a new site (controlled ads) we could get higher ratings on the Jagex fansite list and possible make enough to break even or profit (though I don't exactly know what a massive community of people who, for the most part, don't know each other in real life would do with the profits from a site of their own). Also, if we were to find a new "wiki farm", we may find one that pulls another "Wikia" and makes terrible updates, but what do we do then? I suppose we just stay with the newer host, or come back to Wikia. We could tough it out at Wikia, of course, but I don't think there is going to be any advancment, whether on the JAgex fansite list or as a site in general.--Scimitar77 22:53, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support--I don't like the new way the wiki is set up and i believe that moving the wiki would be the best thing that could happen. I find the new setup odd and kind of confusing to manuever. Make the move!--Pitt6berg 6:18, December 10, 2010 (EST)

Infinantly Strong Adamant Divine Support X Infinity - No rs wikia >>>>>>>>> the current advertisement-invested wikia. Whatever demon had the idea to get rid of the old look needs to go back to hell where it came from. 75.174.239.251 00:31, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support - honestly i'd like to see this have its own layout, setting, well new anything not content related.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leader0011 (talk).

Strong Support - Yes, I agree this will be a damaging blow to the wiki. It will lose readers, writers, traffic, may pose problems of all kinds. But while a move may seem unattractive as of now, we must see things in the long run. Wikia will continue being a thorn in our side indefinately, if we stay here. And if wikia stays on its present course, (of which I have no doubt) things are bound to get worse. If it's death by a thousand cuts or take our chances once, I choose the latter.User:Artwich 08:57, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - If we do decide to move over, how about X10Hosting & MediaWiki? I use both currently and although X10Hosting Accounts have limits such as you have to log into their forums each month or you get inactivity suspended, they are very good hosting so I might be able to host the actual wiki if you want. Im very good with coding websites. Oh and, how about as some users here want to stay... we could keep this but make another one of a different host? Liam - Beta Tester (talk) 09:27, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

"we could keep this" - we can't close this down even if we want to. bad_fetustalk 09:30, December 11, 2010 (UTC)
If you really were "very good with coding websites" you'd know that there is noway on earth that the RuneScape Wiki could run on a shared free host such as X10Hosting. It's laughable. --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 12:38, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

Well, we could... Ask Wikia, Ive seen many wikis closed because of something. Im sure they would appreciate our decision but maybe they could redirect this to our new site if we do. Liam - Beta Tester (talk) 09:32, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

You should read the discussion before commenting. There are several instances that wikia didn't close down the original wiki when the wiki moved, they will do the same here if we move. bad_fetustalk 09:43, December 11, 2010 (UTC)
If we leave, we're obviously going to be independent. That's been made very clear. It is quite laughable that someone would even suggest X10Hosting. And Rswfan, coding goes a lot deeper than basic HTML and CSS. Andrew talk 15:40, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

Closing While there is still discussion, it has for a large part become circular arguments. A certain group wishes to leave, and a large group has said they will not. So while the wiki en masse will not move to a new host, any editor or group is free to do of course. Any who decide they are going to leave should start a new clean thread to discuss where they will go and the other particulars. --Degenret01 16:28, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

Reopened Some members wish to keep arguing. Go for it. --Degenret01 23:17, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

(4)

Oppose (for now) Let's give the wikia staff a few months; if things don't change I will support at that time. (They have loosened the ToU now so I am slightly optimistic)

Noobs are very tasty · Vector Skin!Edit this page

01:00, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Rune445566 03:51, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea why this is section 4 but its the bottom of the page so here is my bit.(P.S.Don't tell me why it is 4, I don't really care) Not leaving No matter who does, and how many do so, there will remain a large group of editors here. We have hundreds of contributors a month and less than 50-60 people have posted here. I myself will not move on to a new site no matter who else does, and I bet a vast number of the non Yew Grove posters and random IPs also will remain. --Degenret01 05:26, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Support for Degenret01 and I Eat Noobs. I keep my fingers crossed that Wikia will release its customers, the most important people it serves, are unhappy, and start making changes to PLEASE the customers, not make it easy to make money (after all, happy customers = more vistors = more money. Unhappy customers = Goodbye = Lost revenue). Hofmic Talk 07:09, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose As a casual editor, I don't see a lot of the point of this. The problem isn't that bad and while sure, the advertising is horrible there's advertising on a lot of other websites. You learn to live with it, we all do. While I would probably move with the community, I'd still heavily rely on Wikia's RSWiki. The problem is that results here are likely to be skewed. Here, you're only going to find the more hardcore members of the community, those who know what the Yew Grove is (don't laugh, most of the people I know IRL that go on here have no clue what it is). Sure, the skin is annoying but let's face it. Wikia needs us, the community, to stay on their site. We're one of the larger Wikis they have. While sure, there shouldn't be any advertising, this gives us the ability to bother them into coming to a compromise with us, surely?
Yes, this whole thing sucks but really there are some things you're going to have to suck in and take. If we leave, the hardcore editors will leave but the other people, the random contributors and the people who are going to stay here, even the people who just come here for information are going to remain. I never even look at the front page and I'm sure many others don't, either (I search RSWiki from Chrome's bar directly). The best part about the Runescape Wiki is the community and a good half (at least!) of the community will be lost if we move.
Basically, in my opinion we should suck it up and deal with it. You've said it yourself - Wikis are more for functionality and purpose than looks or "social networking" (I have no clue who said that and how they got it). So what does it matter what it looks like? What does it matter if we have fixed width, or some advertising? As long as the page is there, the information is on it (laid out in a concise manner that we can all easily understand) and the Wiki is easy to edit (for even the random IP addresses willing to correct spelling or grammar, or perhaps edit in a few details) what does it matter? --Teri (: 10:48, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

You completely missed the point. The looks isn't the problem with the new skin, the problem is that it reduces functionality significantly, and wikia proved that they care much more about the money rather than the community. Sure, this isn't a problem right now, but it will eventually be our downfall. Nobody wants to see a hell lot of advertisements when looking for runescape info. Also, wikia is not going to compromise with us. Wikians all across wikia wanted them not to release oasis, did wikia listen to them? No. Why would they listen to a single community when they don't listen to all their editors? bad_fetustalk 14:07, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Comment --- I would not worry about Google. Google likes CURRENT UP-TO-DATE CONTENT. Stale pages on Google get left in the dust compared to current pages on the same subject.

Furthermore, within a very short period of time, comparable pages on both sites would not even look like copies to Google. And therefore there would be no issue with duplicate pages.

If the quality editors move, then within 3 to 6 months (Google's update cycle), pages on a new site would float to the top over pages here.

Personally, I am divided on whether to split or not. I hate the new skin, so have changed my preferences to Monobook, which is not as good as Monaco was, but is infinitely better than the new skin.

 mmerlinn  Talk  Contribs   13:06, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

They would not be left in the dust. You assume that everyone leaves. I guarantee you that enough people will stay to run the wiki, even if it's not optimal. The splitting of the community would be detrimental. HaloTalk 14:24, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - This should have remained closed. It is clear consensus will not be achieved. The purpose of a Yew Grove is not to argue until everyone is happy, because not everyone will ever be happy. The wiki community will remain here. HaloTalk 14:30, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

You're not neutral on this. It's a bias close. 00:17, December 14, 2010 (UTC)
Degen already closed it. I was merely restating what he said. I am not neutral on this, but no one else is either. Consensus here is clear. There is nothing stopping people who want to leave from making a new thread to discuss that as Degen stated. Also, this is closed, if you wish to complain about my judgment, feel free to make a new yew grove. HaloTalk 01:36, December 14, 2010 (UTC)