I've noticed lately a lot of new "Runescape Wiki"s have appeared. Since these are duplicates and if anything harm our reputation since they use our name "RuneScape Wiki", so I propose we contact Wikia and request these wikis redirect to us as they will never develop into anything.
We should have rs.wikia.com, runescapewiki.wikia.com, and rswiki.wikia.com and other likely names redirected to us before they are created, since if pattern follows they soon will and once they are created it is harder to have them redirected.
Wikis that are not yet abandoned or may have some content we can ask the founder to have it redirected. If the wiki is abandoned and has no or little content we can have them redirected to us.
While duplicate wikis are allowed they can be redirected if they are under the above and if they haven't been created yet.
A few examples of the wikis:
- Comment - shouldn't they be just deleted? 00:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yea they should i looked at 2 and one of them had has a page "Runescape is for retards with no lifes" so delete or merge so right now i'm Support 00:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- If they are not redirected they could be recreated. - TehKittyCatTalk Wikian-Book 00:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- Super strong support for obvious reasons 00:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - We don't own the internet or have any influence over wikia. Who are we to judge other peoples personal projects and automatically deem them failures because they are new? Contact the creators of those wikias and let them know about us and present your proposal, but don't try to cut them out of the deal and deny them any chance. TEbuddy 06:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Partial support I'd support creating redirects, but I agree with TEbuddy that we can't just merge with the ones that already exist. I think we should contact them, and if they don't respond in a month, then go for absorbing them (this seems quite likely as most of them have little to no edits) --Serenity1137 09:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Support - Per Killr. --
09:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Support - TEBuddy, wikia already has a perfectly good runescape wiki. why do they need another one? some of those wikis have no articals and should be removed by wikia to start with (IMO) --10:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- Right and there were already perfectly informational and popular fansites before the Runescape wiki was ever created. As I said above, this is a free wiki hosted by wikia, we have zero say in the affairs of other people and their projects. TEbuddy 15:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Support - But if the people on respective wikis don't want to then there is nothing we can do about it. I think that most of them are people's own personal fansite and they don't want to edit on ours, they want their own but can't write in HTML to make their own fansite like sal's realm, so they make a wiki.--Joe Click Here for Awesomeness 13:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- If Wikia really is supposed to prevent multiple wikis on one subject, then this whole discussion is irrelevant. Someone (anyone) should just head up there and tell them. If you don't want to do this, I'd encourage you to link us to where this policy can be found. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 16:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- I believe I've stumbled upon that policy once or twice. But I know more from personal experience. Every time I tried to create a wiki that I didn't know already existed the request was denied because the wiki already exists, under a different name, though. Most of those were small, unpopular wikis. Our wiki is in the "Largest of the gaming category" list. I don't understand how they could miss us. But I'll find the policy... --— Enigma 16:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - Those wiki's are individually run and I don't think we need to have them redirect to us. We are already doing well and I think we should allow them to build their community too. We shouldn't be the only wiki fansite for RuneScape. If others want a fansite for RuneScape on the wiki let them. They may want different policies and procedures or methods to their community some don't want here. Were doing okay for ourselves anyways. A few extra spots on the list isn't make a large difference.
19:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- And in regards to duplicate titled fansites, if it's a policy violation we should close the others, not redirect. We don't need it. Once their gone we'll automatically be the top list source without needing the redirects.
Comment - I'm proposing only redirecting the ones that will never go anywhere because they are abandoned or never developed, not because they are another wiki about RuneScape, if they have something that sets them apart and/or are likely to develop that is fine, but the wikis I saw(at least most) had only the main page or one other page. Therunewiki is fine for example(although I mentioned it) as it has content, while runescapeinfo has nothing. - TehKittyCatTalk Wikian-Book 22:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Support - therunewiki, the only one that has any content isn't original at all. It's incredibly obvious that all their articles and templates were copied and pasted from here or a fansite like Sales Realm. I can tell because the articles and templates are still full of links that lead to pages here or on Sals Realm. The others obviously don't amount to anything. Andrew talk 02:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Support and Comment - Umm,TEbuddy,you're saying exactly what we said when we wanted to keep the RSWP in the Abolish the Newspaper forum......Oh,I Support per all,I don't mean to make anyone look bad,or be overly harsh or prideful,but lets face it. We are obviously the best english RuneScape Wiki....and from what Man Tag said,they aren't even about RuneScape...--
20:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- No, the newspaper was using our name (our actual wiki) and our space as a host and was very very poor quality. These other wikis are not ours, not using our name, and are in no way associated with us. TEbuddy 21:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Okay,I looked at all of those "runescape wikis" and here's what I found:
1)None of them except the second one have any more than 2 pages.
2)The 4th one has 2 main pages...
3)The first one has only one page(not including the main page) and can be found here
4)The second one was the best of all of them(though thats not saying much still) but you can clearly see the information here was obviously copied off of here.
5)The third one had only one page(not counting the main page,which was empty....) and that page had only two words,which I will write Here: "Horst Horst",which can be seen here
6)None of them except the the second one had any information on the main page,which was entirely blank except for the information which had been put there at the creation of the wiki.
7)The best one,(the second one,I believe) had 23 pages,including ones about the Runescape banner,and Zezima. The article about Zezima said:He is level 126 and has all 99s with a picture of his hiscores and of him walking.
8)The best one(the second one) had information that was clearly from this wiki,but our wiki did it better,cleaner and nicer.
Do you still think we shouldn't get rid of them?Before blindly supporting these wikis,at least check what they to offer,but I couldn't find any useful information on any of them....--
20:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- We cannot 'punish' them for using our information - it is released under the Creative Commons licensing ([[w:Wikia:Licensing|here is Wikia's page on it]], here is a summary of the license). They are allowed to use it so long as they attribute us. 20:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment - It doesn't matter whats on them, someone created them with the intention of doing something. Unless you want to contact the creators and let them know whats going on I refuse to support cutting them out of the deal on a completely free service like wikia. TEbuddy 21:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with them using our information,but its not only our information. The longest article (dragon slayer) is made using almost word-for-word quotations from Sal's Realm of Runescape. There are more links to Sal's Realm than the wiki itself...Also,I did not wish to 'punish' them,just merge them with this wiki. Also,the first one has only 1 page,which has,(as of 22:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)) no content,and is simply called Runescape_is_for_retards_with_no_lifes. I believe there is a rule against that,no? I suggest we redirect those wiki pages,as per Catcrewser. --
22:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Maybe try contacting wikia about them, it's their call isn't it?23:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Done - I have received response to the request: "I agree, while we want to allow people to try something new, we do wish to close wikis that have not established enough of a separate identity to attract active users. I'll review the list and discuss this with fellow staff members, and at least some of these wikis will likely be closed in the near future." so it appears at least some of the large list might be closed sometime in the near future. Since, I do not see this developing any farther I suggest this be archived. - TehKittyCatTalk Wikian-Book 00:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Closed - The relevant action has been taken.15:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)