Forum:Wikia vs. Independent:

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Wikia vs. Independent:
Note: This topic has been unedited for 2256 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.


I'm aware that we switched sites... But the wikia version has more pages. I thought they synced with eachother... If we didn't, then why not? Should ALL articles be on the 2 sites? I'm curious because I'm not sure who's viewing my articles. AND THAT'S BULLSHIT. – Preceding unsigned comment added by Acmed2 (talk • contribs)

It's a fork. I'm not really sure however whether the articles should be on both sites. I would think not–they're really two different sites now. — Sir Y KUN NotM UGM FIC PS F@H No uncyclopedia.png (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
So... would it be acceptable to post articles on BOTH sites? Like, just a copy/paste sorta deal? --All rise for Billy the King! (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
If it's your article, I would say yes. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 00:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Cool. But just out of curiosity, which site is more used? And is there a possibility that one of the sites will overpower the other? --All rise for Billy the King! (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Used by whom? The wikia site still gets plenty of IP hits and edits and probably more readers, but fewer votes on VFH and VFD since there are fewer active registered users. This site has more active registered users and more forum and voting activity. At this point, the possibility that one site will "overpower the other" is next to nil. The traffic statistics of this site do not show more traffic than the other site, though that may change at some point in the future, and wikia is less than forthcoming in the individual statistics of the wikia site. The success of one site has nothing to do with the success or failure of the other site. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 00:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
You can spam articles all over the Internet as long as they're yours. If your article doesn't suck, let us have it. We will further edit it so that it will start sucking. -- Style Oranssiviiva.jpg Guide 16:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
At this point the two sites have diverged on content, but we also lost some bogus stuff and have had more active maintenance (some horrible cruft has been removed since we have active admins). Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 2013.03.03.22:55
Active Admins and the Horrible Cruft was my favorite book when I was little. The follow-up, More Active Admins and the Horrible Cruft was okay, too, but can't hold a candle to the original. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 16:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
You obviously haven't even read Horrible Cruft sucks balls again or The Revenge of Active Admins. These don't even belong to the same series but were written a few decades earlier by some excellent writers. That's what it said on the news today. -- Style Oranssiviiva.jpg Guide 13:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Admittedly, Harry Potter and the Horrible Cruft was a standout of the series, because the plot broke Harry Potter conventions (it was the one where, unlike the other books, Harry had to go to the place to get the object to do the thing. Spoiler Alert: He also had to fight a character who turned out to be working for Voldemort). Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 16:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
OMFG THAT'S HORRIBLE! Did he survive? -- Style Oranssiviiva.jpg Guide 17:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Again, unlike the rest of the series, he resolved it with a plot contrivance (but a different one than in Harry Potter and the Plot Contrivance). Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 18:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Did that Rowling broad know of this? -- Style Oranssiviiva.jpg Guide 18:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
She covered it in Harry Potter and the Copyright Infraction. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 20:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Like, no way! And Harry is still alive after all that? -- Style Oranssiviiva.jpg Guide 22:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)