https://youtu.be/u15HmEMp2Qc?si=XOrVXy0Qu8Jn9ghA (Piped)
I guess there are trucks in World of Warcraft
Also find me at @Notnotmike@beehaw.org and @NotNotMike@notnotlemmy.com
https://youtu.be/u15HmEMp2Qc?si=XOrVXy0Qu8Jn9ghA (Piped)
I guess there are trucks in World of Warcraft
Oh nice! I’ve kept the Xbox game bar running so that I can make these clips so it will be nice to ditch that bloated mess - no need for two overlays
Just added this to my browser this morning, coincidentally! Not sure what thread it was, but I thought it was this one. Thanks for the link though, it’ll be a big help
Thank you very much! I wasn’t aware of these guidelines so it’s interesting to read
I think the notability is a little hard to define, so I could see some discussion happening, especially about more minute details like individual items in games. But it seems like, based on the existence of a Krillin page, that there is at least some precedent for somewhat broader topics
I see what you’re saying, but also I don’t think those analogies are necessarily fair. I don’t think putting Yoshi’s birthday on Wikipedia instead of Yoshipedia is quite as critical as a central bank failure
We’re on Lemmy, which is an aggregation source just like Wikipedia. Some knowledge is only stored here, while other knowledge is an external link. It’s not a bad thing to be a central point of information as long as it is a community-driven process with high levels of transparency, like Wikipedia.
Lemmy, however, works differently from Wikipedia or Reddit in that multiple services work together to be that aggregation source, which is great, and Wikipedia doesn’t have that, which is not great. So that of course could be better in an ideal world, and I would bet there is a federated Wiki service already out there
But, I’m not talking about life changing information here, I’m talking about what happened to Krillin in episode 700 of Dragon Ball Super, I think it’s okay if that information lives in one central location - especially since you can always just watch the episode again to verify
Do you happen to know where in the rules it would list the “level of relevance”. I did a cursory read through of the content guidelines but I didn’t see anything that would necessarily exclude descriptions of specific video game content, levels, or assets, but I’m no master at Wikipedia - I can’t say I’ve contributed much beyond donations.
Also I did mention those unique features some wikis have. For example, the Old School RuneScape Wiki has some really great calculators, maps, and data collectors, so I’m very happy with those. But for less popular ones where nobody is putting in the work to make the wiki exemplary feels like we may as well save time and not give Fandom money by using Wikipedia
And look and feel I would say is good unless it’s a fandom, and then all the look and feel in the world doesn’t justify those ads
One thing that recently had me pondering was why do we need separate wikis, why not just add the information to Wikipedia? Unless your wiki has some feature Wikipedia doesn’t support, it just seems to provide a background image and ads.
For example, I was looking up some Dragonball information, and their wiki was really sparse and didn’t answer my question. So I randomly tried Wikipedia and it had all my answers
My only guess is some Wikipedia usage rules that say not to but I find that unlikely
Yeah, for me part of the fun of Yu-Gi-Oh was having really cool cards in your deck that was a big moment when you summoned them (I was a kid, times were simple)
But now newer decks summon and tribute like 8 monsters in a single turn, it’s outrageous, and if you don’t know every card by heart you’ll just be stun locked trying to figure out why you got destroyed
That’s why I prefer to play legacy decks if at all