StrategyWiki and Dragon Quest Wiki

[JORDAN DEBONO]

These two wikis do not provide actual info about Nintendo. Dragon Quest is third party and StrategyWiki... that's not even a game or company owned by Nintendo. I'm not asking anyone to remove them from membership, certainly not, but shouldn't we put them into a separate class of membership like Other Nintendo-related wikis or something. We should also ask Wikipedia to join.... let's face it there are MANY hyperlinks to it so it doesn't make sense not to have them with us. What d'you think ?

Jordan

EDIT: Pikmin Fanon should also go into a separate class of membership as well.

[dkpat]

Wikipedia is on a completely different class. They cannot join, nor would they. They would just laugh in our faces.  The reason there is many hyperlinks to them is because it is a huge informational source, and we are promoting all wikis.

Pikmin Fanon is just as much a full member as anyone else.

I personally am not going to touch your Dragon Quest and Strategy Wiki qualm... at least not right now.

[Moydow]

Having separate tiers of membership has been mentioned in the past, and been roundly defeated every time. As I see it, they should either be full members of NIWA, or not at all. StrategyWiki don't cover any single franchise, they cover walkthroughs for all commercial video games. When they were voted into NIWA, it was felt that the benefits of having them as a full member far outweighed the negatives. As for Dragon Quest Wiki, obviously they have less of a connection to Nintendo than the other members, but the majority of our staff felt that it was strong enough to merit membership (e.g. some DQ games were published by Nintendo in some regions).

Pikmin Fanon, like Dillion said, are no less a full member than anyone else. They cover a legitimate part of the Pikmin fandom not covered by Pikipedia. Similarly, if a decent-quality Mario or Zelda fanon wiki wanted to join, they'd be entitled to full membership as well. So separate classes of membership isn't the way to go for me.

Wikipedia is just too big. There's too much overlap - they'd end up killing off a lot of our smaller wikis.

[JORDAN DEBONO]

True that, but I'm not saying they shouldn't have full membership, but maybe they should be put under a different type of membership heading. Maybe something like

Nintendo Franchises: MarioWiki, ZeldaWiki etc.   |   3rd Party Franchises: DQWiki, SonicWiki etc.   |   Fanon: Pikmin Fanon etc.   |   Other: StrategyWiki, NIWA Hub etc

Do you get what I mean ?

And your point about Wikipedia not joining makes sense so I won't bother supporting it. Although let's say it would join, it would go under the heading ''Other''. I just think the memberships are a little disorganized and should be put under separate headings to differentiate between them.

Thanks for replying btw,
Jordan

[FlyingRagnar]

What exactly would be the benefit?  Being a member means you have the support and are included in the hyperlinks on the other wikis.  I see nothing worthwhile about putting DQ and StrategyWiki in a separate list of links.  You are either a member or you aren't.

[JORDAN DEBONO]

Ok now I'm not asking to remove them as fully fledged members, but under each NIWA wiki there is a box with all the current members of NIWA. If that box were to just categorize the members, wouldn't it look a little more organized? If you like I will create a draft template to show what I mean.

[dkpat]

Ok now I'm not asking to remove them as fully fledged members, but under each NIWA wiki there is a box with all the current members of NIWA. If that box were to just categorize the members, wouldn't it look a little more organized? If you like I will create a draft template to show what I mean.

It may not be what you intend, but by categorizing them we would be marking them as different, not the same as the others. Especially since we only have about 2 members for this other category, it demotes their importance in comparison to the rest of NIWA.

[JORDAN DEBONO]

Ok I guess so. After all there aren't many, as you rightly said, but maybe if more of the same types of members join I might bring this up again. Thank you all for replying.

[KidIcarus]

What if we classified them separately but specifically put a sidenote saying they were equally important?

[tacopill]

the only way that would work, in my opinion, is to have the membership page, broken up like this:

Code: [Select]

-- First Party -- <---- gap ---> -- Second Party -- <--- gap ---> -- Third Party --

this way, no wiki group comes in "second" or later in the page listing.

[KidIcarus]

Oh maybe not then. I like it the way it is except it sucks for Zelda Wiki because it looks like their the bottom of the rung of the ladder that is N.I.W.A. and that Bulbapedia is the G.O.A.T.

[tacopill]

what is "G.O.A.T"?

[KidIcarus]

Greatest of all time

[SnorlaxMonster]

It's alphabetical, which is probably the fairest method (we could do join order though I guess).

Also, Bulbapedia is clearly the Greatest of All Time (not biased at all)

[KidIcarus]

Can sites like Yahoo Answers join?