Printable View
IIRC, they just abandoned it in favour of a host that didn't cover half their articles with advertising. Unfortunately the original host won't just remove the framework of a 'free' wiki, it has to be left there like an abandoned house, allowing any squatters to use or vandalise the premises. So while the framework (sub-domain) exists, deleting the contents by the outgoing owners is a waste of time because the contents can be re-installed at any time by the new 'owners'.
Wikia wouldn't delete it partly because the Teletraan I wikia was one of their most popular wikis, and they used it for propaganda purposes when promoting how the new Wikia layout (which itself was later modified to include more intrusive advertising). Wikia claimed since changing we received a spike of hits. IIRC, the problem was their claimed jump in the number of visits was due to the BotCon weekend and the days when new episodes of Animated aired, so we would have been expecting jumps in visitors regardless of layout.
Lots of non-fan sites linked to the Teletraan I wikia during the filming of Revenge of the Fallen because of certain rumours, which doesn't help. Our article for a certain character related to this was updated to beef up the fiction section/biography and include more images, but it's still on page 3 of google searches.
Yay, the TFWiki.net now has over 1000 more articles than the Wikia site.
As of 25/1/09:
TFWiki.net: 8,009 articles
Wikia: 6,998 articles
Psyche edge! We hit 8000 before they hit 7000, in two days we created 65 new articles.
So what is the 8009th article?
8010 articles now.
The latest one is Hiroaki Hirata, and the 8009th article is a frame work for the Armada preview comic from 2002. Somebody should get around to writing it during the week.
You guys should have stayed at the old location and 'deleted' its content, and then after it dropped out of the 'ratings', asked for it to be removed. Now you'll be competing against something you guys put in the effort to create in the first place.
Are you suggesting we should have deleted our articles and sit on the wiki for a few months, then ask Wikia to delete it entirely?
If so, then that would have been a bad idea, because not only would it have annoying, but it would be petty and would damage our reputation in the long run. We would be annoying ourselves by not being able to edit our work for however long it took to accomplishthis, and would also deprive fellow fans of information.
Besides, wikia would just restore the wiki from a backup database. They would never delete it entirely if there's money to be had.Towards the end, Wikia were very impatient to see is go as we were clearly not going to toe the company line. Apparently our protest made it to the technology section of The Guardian in the UK.
When they started placing ads on the front page of the wiki, it busted up the layout, but we decided to leave it alone with the ad hovering over content as a protest. Wikia wanted us to fix it, we refused, they proposed to do it themselves, we weren't keen. They did it anyway... and made the problem even worse. The guy who attempted to fix the layout only used Internet Explorer, so it was screwed up for users of Opera, Firefox and other non-IE browsers.
We moved because we didn't want corporate interference such as this into our hobby. As for competition, it's not much competition. Assuming the Wikia wallows in an unmoderated wasteland from now on, we will catch up in google rankings eventually.
I wasn't suggesting to be petty or childish over the matter. You seem annoyed about the direction the new admin is taking the wiki, as if it is perverting all the effort that was originally put into it. Since you were saying that host (wikia) wouldn't allow the creators to remove the site because of how high it rated for them - then why not make it less popular, so that it was no longer of financial interest to the host, allowing the creators regain control over it again. It wouldn't have meant making the old site unreliable or empty, but just prioritising the new tfwiki, and putting in links to the new one from the old one. When the site wasn't generating as many hits, the host wouldn't have a financial interest in it, and wouldn't care if it was removed.
Once it was completely removed (the sub-domain or registered site) at the creator's request, someone else may register a new Transformers wikia, but I wouldn't think that wikia would allow the new site and registrant access and install your content on an entirely new wikia website.
You said that keeping the old site to direct traffic to the new site would damage your reputation, but allowing someone else to pervert your creation with the same appearance and format, people will think the new one is related to the old one, damaging your claim/reputation of objectiveness. At least if you still held the old site and directed traffic to your new one direct from it, without vandalising the old site, your reputation would have remained intact.
I believe somebody proposed that, but in the end, Wikia were very keen to see us go if we weren't going to be 100% into their wiki, and we didn't have the time or people to watch over two wikis.
We advertised our move for quite a while before we actually left, so sites linking to us changed their links and most fans who visited us changed their bookmarks accordingly. Soon after the move, there was a notice at the top of the wiki advertising the fact the staff and contributors had left. Wikia changed it about a day or two later to simply say there was an alternative site, to make it seem as though it was a mirror. Then they removed the notice altogether.
Some of us had hoped that after we left, the Wikia wiki would become a different sort of wiki, the sort of wiki Gok and others might have preferred with an ultra-serious tone without jokes or fun :p, or a place for people who have an axe to grind about Walky (one of our admins) could go. Then we could have a rumble at BotCon Board Wars :D
However, the person installed by Wikia to replace us was a semi-regular contributor who declined to come with us (though he's since edited on our TF Wiki, anyway) pretty much kept the place as it was, with some minor differences. So instead of being reborn into a new wiki, it has limped on ever since.
Oh, here's some randomness. This is what the front page looked like after Wikia forced their ads in.
http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Image:Awesome...i-mainpage.png
Continued from here
That's your opinion, not a fact. You cannot be seriously saying that it's a fact that Galaxy Force fans who were disgruntled with Cybertron deserve to be mocked. Nobody deserves to be ridiculed just because their opinions differ from your own. :/Quote:
Originally Posted by FFN
Opinions =/= facts. Something that TFwiki seems to be incapable of recognising. (-_-)
wait wait wait
there are some people who DON'T want 'Cybertron' included in the 'Armada trilogy" ???
Whatever for?
Not quite. When Galaxy Force was first produced, it was intended to be a separate series from Micron Legend and Super Link in Japan, but Hasbro had Cybertron modified to make it a direct continuation from Energon. Some Galaxy Force fans didn't like this and criticised Hasbro for altering Galaxy Force like that. Later Studio Gonzo retconned Galaxy Force making it part of the same continuity as Micron Legend and Super Link, just like Cybertron was in the first place.
That doesn't meant that those critics "deserved" to be ridiculed though - to state that this is a fact is ridiculous, just because someone may not agree with them. I don't necessarily agree with them - I'm a Galaxy Force fan myself, but if Hasbro wants to change Cybertron then whatever... I don't watch Cybertron anyway so I don't care what Hasbro does with it anyway. If Galaxy Force fans find the alterations made to Cybertron to be so unpalatable then don't watch it!
They deserve to be mocked because they were wrong, and they were sad about their arguments in an anime fanboy fashion.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoktimusPrime
hmmmmm ive weighed up the evidence on both sides
It seems to me that Galaxy force should have been a sequel to its predecessors from the start, a series about a newly formed black hole, obviously it was caused by Unicrons destruction in Energon/Superlink :rolleyes:
I have no choice but to side with Cybertron, the others were deserving of their fate
Case closed!!!
Roller has been a practicing continuity barrister for 25 years, if you have any problems understanding continuity and your place in it don't hesitate to visit his offices between 9-5
That's your opinion - and while I can see where you're coming from, it's not a fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by FFN
C'mon... haven't we covered this?Quote:
Originally Posted by GoktimusPrime
The TFWiki does not purport itself to be fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by FFN
Shouldn't this be stopped as it is an argument neither can win. one of those things like religion or politics.
It is pretty much about a moral since it is about whether or not someone deserved something or not
Quote:
17 - Unresolveable topics like religion, politics, social ideologies, etc, are discouraged. Other boards cater for that.
While I'm not really sure about adding TFwiki to the board rules I am sick of the circular arguements. I've closed this thread before and if this continues it's going to be locked again.
One suggestion which I think would be improvement on TF Wiki would be to update the Featured Article on the main page more regularly.
Featured Articles are an excellent way to throw out some random and interesting fact and provide stimulus and change. Between Dinobot and Minerva, I think they've had the last 4-6 weeks in there just to themselves.
I think the problem is most of our articles are unfinished in some manner, making them less than Feature worthy. I think Dinobot's is the only finished Beast Wars character article. I blame 2006 article standards, which was when the BW articles were written. Stupid past-selves.
I'll see if I can get a vote going on the next Featured Article, thanks for reminding me.
There you go, featured article for Feb 2009 is up.
does tf wiki have anything on the Chile ads ? they seem to feature unique animation
A search string on "Sparkler(s)" doesn't redirect to "Sparkabot."
Um... Gok... "Sparkler" does redirect there. "Sparklers" and "Sparkler Mini-bot" don't, however.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoktimusPrime
I typed in "Sparklers." I think that ought to be fixed so that the redirection kicks in if people use the plural.