Jump to content

PCGamingWiki will soon migrate to a Single Sign On (SSO) system to bridge Wiki and Forum accounts, please read our FAQ.


Proposal: Remove wikis from General information

Recommended Posts

Proposal to remove wikis from General information and the Editing guide.

Wikis were included because generally speaking there was 'the one' wiki everyone used. However with the advent of massive wikifarms, a single game could have several wikis associated with it.


  • Inconsistencies with 'community wiki' / 'official wiki' terminology - meaningless as all wikis are community wikis
  • Wikis don't offer technical information
  • If a wiki contains a good technical page, this could be linked to separately

Proposed solution:

  • Remove any game wikis from General information

Time limit: 7 days (14th June 2019)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm okay with the idea and I don't think PCGW will miss out on anything if those links are removed.

When adding a link to an article I'm thinking of whether it would be valuable to a potential reader and how much weight there is to it. There's no universal approach, because linking a wiki or a subreddit for a game released on the EGS with no official platforms to offer is of different value compared to adding it to a game that is on Steam, where the Steam Discussions and Guides platforms are commonly used to achieve the same purpose as that of a subreddit or a wiki, to name a few.

I don't think the discussion started over the presumed confusion between official vs community. It was Aemony asking about the more appropriate wording for a non-official wiki - "community" (used by me) vs "unofficial" (used by Aemony). It's of no essence but my argument for and reasoning behind the word "community" is purely based on the guidelines and commonly used words in the articles - GOG.com Community Discussions, Steam Community Discussions, and especially Community wikis - all taken from Key points and General information. The word "unofficial" isn't even used on the page.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing about GOG and Steam 'Community' is that it is the name of the page, we just link them with that name because it's what their titles are and it so happens that these titles are descriptive. However they are essentially forums with threads and replies.

I am open to the ideas of discussing Community vs Unofficial but this should be a separate thread with a proposed outcome.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now I'll abstain from making a choice either for or against, as I can't really make up my mind on it yet.


For removal:

  • What's mentioned in the opening post.
  • Games in a series often have the same franchise-reaching wiki listed on all games in that series.
  • Can be the cause of edit wars as a result of "competing" unofficial wikis.
    • This is applicable for all non-official links.
  • In the case of multiple "competing" wikis being available, no simple answer for editors is available on which one to include.
    • This is applicable for all non-official links.


Against removal:

  • Still relevant to visitors in some fashion, and the General information section "is a list of general links that are relevant to the game."
  • This touches partially on what PCGW wants to be, and cover. PCGW have included mentions of official/community wikis as well as "fan sites" as acceptable being listed in the General information section for years now, and while perhaps a wiki haven't been listed in all cases, it is one of the more frequently seen links of articles. This is one of the least "technical-focused" aspects of articles, and is more about general information about the universe of the game etc.
    • Basically, do PCGW only want to concern itself with technical stuff about a game, or try to serve as a universal springboard for further resources a player might want.
      • Should players be linked to PCGW only when it concerns technical matters, or should PCGW be able to link players forward in non-technical matters as well?
    • This relates to possible discoverability of titles through PCGW, if such a thing is desired as a goal of the site.
  • Minor food for thought that can potentially be affected:
    • How would search engine rankings be affected by the removal of these sorts of keywords?


Alternative proposals:

  • #1: Remove unofficial wikis only, and keep official wikis when possible.
  • #2: Don't change anything, but clear up the phrasing involved when listing unofficial wikis in the Editing Guide, and continue to allow the PCGW community to sort this out themselves what wiki to link to as have been done for years.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Aemony said:

#1: Remove unofficial wikis only, and keep official wikis when possible.

This would be my choice if any change would have to be made and it is the way I've been listing wikis in the past. Usually these are the ones that are linked on a games official website.


However, all the above mentioned problems can just as well be applied to fan sites and not only wikis. So this discussion should probably concern both types of content.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't yet thought this through, but I'm in favor of removing at least Wikia (fandom.com, wikia.org) as the information in the game wikis is often unsourced and non-encyclopedic (subjective most commonly), in addition to Wikia, Inc. being a for-profit company with millions in funds

I can't recall of Wikia has hosted the "official" wiki for a major game.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

If wiki links are to be removed, we should consider making exemptions for the following sites:

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it allowed to start removing Wikia (now fandom.com) under "general information" in all articles? For instance the Harry Potter series pages always include this line:

{{mm}} [http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Harry Potter Wiki] - A massive wiki for the Harry Potter universe

"Massive" is subjective and the URL is entirely outdated (but redirects) — should be completely in any case.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mars icecream said:

"Massive" is subjective and the URL is entirely outdated (but redirects) — should be completely rewritten in any case.

I would remove the "massive" part without thinking. Absolutely subjective indeed.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Found PCGamingWiki useful? Please consider making a Donation or visiting our Patreon.
  • Similar Content

    • By SirYodaJedi
      This seems like an important setting, especially with the prominence of high-PPI UHD monitors.
      True: Has option to change scaling settings. May or may not automatically scale based on selected resolution. Example: SWTOR
      Always on: Is automatically scaled based on resolution, but has no manual setting. Example: Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga
      Limited: Only scales certain elements (ex: graphics but not text), or cannot be scaled beyond a certain percentage of the base resolution. Example: Half-Life 2
      False: Is not scaled and does not have an option to scale. Can't think of an example off the top of my head.
      Hackable: Hackable. Example: Quake
      This could go in the video settings table, or it could go in a potential accessibility table. I think probably wait until a dedicated accessibility table is made and put any info in 4K for now.
    • By Andytizer
      In the beginning, PCGamingWiki shied away from including classification of games because we were focused only on fixes - we weren't interested if a game was a 'third person shooter' or a 'first person shooter' - we just wanted FOV fixes, widescreen fixes, etc.   However I think things could be improved - taking a queue from Wikipedia:   Modes: Firstly with the way the tables work, some genres don't require 'FOV' fixes for example 2D games. Or an 90s adventure game doesn't need an 'Inverted Y-Axis' option etc. A mode property would allow us to restrict certain tables so that this makes more sense. This would include things like: VR, 2D, 3D, 1st person, 3rd person, touchscreen, VR etc. Furthermore, in the future we could use this to categorise other features like microtransactions, lootboxes etc.   Genres: Genres are a great way of listing games. We could make lists of Puzzle games on Uplay, RPGs fan translated into Russian, etc. How great would it be to see all the Local co-op games that are 2D rather than 3D (my wife can't play 3D games as she gets motion sick!).      In terms of implementation, this could sit in the proposed Overview section as well as the Infobox itself.
    • By SirYodaJedi
      Example of where it would be useful: https://pcgamingwiki.com/w/index.php?title=The_Elder_Scrolls_III%3A_Morrowind&type=revision&diff=716310&oldid=716303
    • By Andytizer
      Reviews are a very important part of 'discovery' of what game to play. How much more useful would our lists be if we could filter or sort by Metacritic score? 
      Metacritic includes the Critic score which tends to be fairly static after release.
      There is also the User Score which tends to fluctuate a lot, even years after release, or is subject to review bombing.
      I would be happy to include both.
      Potentially, Metacritic scores would sit inside the Infobox, with a link directly to the relevant Metacritic page. 
      The values themselves could be gleaned from Wikidata, or another automated method, or could be entered manually.
      I am also open to alternative review aggregators and am open to suggestions.
    • By Aemony
      Support for batch uploads could improve the speed of which users upload multiple screenshots for use in the articles. This seems at first glance as a relative easy feature to implement, as the functionality is already provided through extensions to MediaWiki: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Bulk_upload
      Possible concerns:
      How does this relate to the new backend for images and thumbnails? Does the extension need to have support to make use of the DigitalOcean Space? A few months ago when I tried to do something similar using multiple tabs I would often hit an error similar to a  429, Too many requests, and have a few of the uploads cancelled until I let the current ones finish. Is this something that would occur, and if so, do we need to increase the number of allowed connections per user on the backend?
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 192 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Forum Statistics

    Total Topics
    Total Posts
  • Create New...