Community talk:Zeldapedia (2005-2019)

Neutrality
Seriously, just read this article. It's one paragraph and it screams "BLAAAAH ZELDAPEDIA IS THE WORSTEST ONE BECAUSE THEY HAVE LESS EDITS AND ACTIVITY AND THEY RIP OFF WIKIPEDIA AND ZELDA WIKI" (which, that last point's a little moot; has anyone ever compared our Majora's Mask "Reception" section with Wikipedia's?). I think I'll edit this a bit, but I might need some help. --Ando 18:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the original page created a year ago said: "The Zelda Wiki is a wiki hosted on Wikia. It is very similar to this one."
 * Very informative. I took it upon myself to write something meaningful, so I thought I'd state a few facts. I think at the time I wrote it they had about half the number of articles as we had here (maybe around 1000), and I compared their user list with ours. They're just numbers summarised in a brief sentence, I wasn't aware of any negative overtones. I took out the wikipedia bit since it could be taken as defamatory (again it was another fact, I was just aware that many of the longer articles I glanced through last year had been dumped verbatim from wikipedia). And I'm not sure if one example is enough for the last statement, but again it was just a fact I added; I often see images which I've edited/retouched and uploaded here appearing there soon after, and I don't have any particular issue with it. Anywho, improve away! --Adam 18:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Should there be an article for the NeoSeeker Zelda Wiki? Wikis Zelda 16:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Issue
"Many criticisms commonly raised against Wikia itself are potentially extended to their hosted wikis such as Zeldapedia, including criticisms of being primarily financially motivated."

I might be wrong, but I was under the impression that wikia users weren't paid, with the exception of the people that run wikia. That being said, can we really accuse ZP of this? --Wilbur 21:04, 22 August 2010 (EDT)


 * It's not an accusation towards Zeldapedia, rather Wikia itself, whereas Zeldapedia was simply being used as an example. Furthermore, it is stating that the criticism goes beyond Wikia as a whole, and into the wikis themselves, but I do suppose the wording is bad. 21:08, 22 August 2010 (EDT)
 * But why does the criticism go into the wikis themselves? No one in them gets any money, so they can't really be financially motivated. --Wilbur 21:19, 22 August 2010 (EDT)
 * Hopefully that rewording is more suitable. --Xizor 04:48, 9 November 2011 (EST)