Forum:Domain overhaul - And what do you think?

From Halopedia, the Halo wiki

Forums: Index Archive Domain overhaul - And what do you think?

This proposal has been passed and closed as of October 17th, 2010. For more information, please see here. This is plainly a text copy of the vote, no links are in this copy

Hi everyone,

As of recent the administration has engaged in a private discussion debate about moving Halopedia away from wikia, back to its original domain location, by the means of merging our content with We've seen a number of reasons for this, which I will state below.


For those of you who don't know about Halopedia in its early days, Halopedia was moved to wikia in 2006 due to server problems in terms of finance. Wikia has certainly provided us a stable host for a considerable number of years, for which we are all grateful for. However, with due respect to them, we feel that moving off back to our original site will bring us benefits that we can't have while hosted by wikia, for many reasons.

The why

As Porplemontage, the domain owner and operator has recently brought the site back up and running, the opportunity was seen to re-merge. Aware of what happened back in 2006 when he sent the wiki to wikia, he has been asked, and has replied with confirmation that he is positive he can support us as we currently are, based on our statistics, with the backing that he now possesses a much better server and server power in reserve.

So, what will change?

  • In terms of user rights, nothing. All users who have some form of user right (sysop, rollback, etc) will be guaranteed their rights on the other side. Additionally, this means that such members of our community will merge with their counterparts -- that is, users who may already hold rights on But this will not have any negative effect on us as it is.
  • As our wiki will be independent, this means that any software updates or anything in the technical area will be handled by the administration, as opposed to a form of staff (in our case, wikia staff).
  • Pertaining to the above point, we will also have our own developer support, as I myself have seen to. Because things like addition of features, wiki software, etc would be developed only for the single wiki, it will be easier to base it on community input from that particular wiki. Therefore, community feedback and suggestions can be taken into better consideration for the developing in the technical area, which can effect just about anything in regards to the wiki.
  • Our articles, policies and guidelines will remain the same. Everything that we currently have implemented will be exported from here and imported to the new site. The move will have no effect whatsoever on any of the listed.
  • Elimination of most ads. As many of you know, wikia's income comes from the advertisements it hosts on its wikis. While a promise that will never utilize ads cannot be made, if it ever does, they will be much more sparse and only for logged out users.
  • Community-related: As the wiki will be an independent, standalone site, we can say that the community will be brought closer together. For the administrators, administrating the site will also be easier as they will have access to extra tools for further anti-abuse measures. These will not be used for the settling of disputes, for threatening of users, or otherwise for anything that goes against the administrator's code of conduct. Their use will only be for the security of the site, which altogether will be for the better for the community. As there will be a lack of outlanding-staff, the administration will, with any necessary assistance from developers, be able to handle queries ranging from the simple type that is often given by everyone, to the technical aspects. While not every admin will be able to help in all areas, all areas will be covered. This also will not make the admins higher up the food chain in any way than an ordinary user. Everybody is equal on a wiki regardless; admins are simply individuals that have extra trust.
  • Finally, I should probably mention about wikia's plans to enforce a new skin upon all of its wikis. Nothing wrong with that, right? While this is not the primary reason for the move, I can at least say that it has played as a factor. With due respect to the wikia developers of the skin, some of its changes are very sharp and dramatic. As I've already brought up with my colleagues, the 50% narrowing of article space, the complete redesign of the layout and the theme designer. I myself am part of the beta testing program, and with regards to the Wiki theme designer, after messing around with it for a while, I've found that it is very restricting and a somewhat ill-suitability for Halopedia's theme style. Moving over to our new domain means we move away from the new skin, and my sole personal opinion is such a move would be beneficial. Of course, this would differ from person-to-person as everyone has an opinion about it - similar or different, thus this reason has been kept as much of a minor factor as possible. On the topic of skins -- currently has the options of Vector (wikipedia's skin) and Monobook; we also plan to install Monaco when and if a move is made, so users will be given more options between their skin preferences.

Will we lose anything?

  • Attempts have been made to minimize losses as much as possible. As far as our unique features are concerned, the Social Profile extension has been successfully implemented along with the points system over at The only feature that we will lose is the Blogs due to the code being unusable. While the forums can be used for anything forum-ish, we're hoping that we'll have an alternative as soon as possible.
  • All pages along with their history will be copied from here and imported to the new domain. This includes all articles of all namespaces, so nothing lost there.
  • Traffic: Wikia staff will not close down, for legal and policy reasons. While this means that traffic on the new halopedia will be at first, considerably less, this shouldn't be an issue once the dedicated community switches its involvement from here to the and the articles are implemented. After that's done, traffic there should increase to pretty much the same volume that we currently have here. To explain this a little, the goal is to have it promoted above the in terms of search results etc, while leaving as a simple branch-off with little activity. This in itself can be beneficial to both us and anyone who might pass by, which I can explain if anybody requests so.

So what now?

We, as a community, have come a long way. Everything's in its nutshell. Whether or not this will be carried out will largely depend on the input given out on this forum thread. We know that this is an extremely huge change, and expect that there will be a lot of mixed opinions about it and we want to hear those opinions from the community as a whole, as it is a necessity for a conclusion to be made. All input will be considered and if necessary, discussed. We've done a lot and feel we have done the best we can to make workarounds for issues that would arise from this. I'm happy to say that we can almost if not completely cancel out all issues we can foresee so far. The community is strongly encouraged to make any suggestions and/or questions for anything they are concerned about.


- Nìcmávr (Tálk) 12:13, October 2, 2010 (UTC)


Have any concerns, questions? Anything not covered above? Feel free to ask here

So do we keep our user accounts or do we have to make new ones?--Soul reaper 13:42, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

Where will we find the money to run CF001 14:59, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

What happens with the editcount? Apparently has an editcount of its own. What about the wiki editcount? I reckon it's going to become glitched? Are the halo wikia edits going to be removed or what?- JEA13 [iTalk] 14:19, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

@Soul reaper: User account data will be imported to, so no, you don't need to make a new one.
@CF001: As far as I know, Porple imports finances from his other sites via ads. If has any of these, they will be much more sparse, and only for logged out users. Having stated that he is capable of hosting it, server operation is in good hands.
@JEA13: All of the wiki content will be imported from here. That includes the articles and their histories and by extension, editcount. Obviously it will add on top of the current editcount has at present, but that's no issue. - Nìcmávr (Tálk) 15:11, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
I mean my personal editcount. Assuming I have 4000 edits on this wiki and 9000 general, what happens after the move? Does my general get reduced to 5000? Does it stay on 9000, but stops counting further halopedia edits? Does it stay on 9000, and keeps counting halopedia edits as it did with the halo wikia? - JEA13 [iTalk] 15:15, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
That includes personal editcount. Since we're exporting data only from here, yes, you will have 4000 edits on plus any edits you make there. - Nìcmávr (Tálk) 15:22, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
And so my general WIKIA editcount gets reduced to 5000? - JEA13 [iTalk] 15:26, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
No, your wikia editcount remains untouched. As said above, the halo wikia site won't be taken down by wikia due to their policy. Therefore the move would not have any effect on any of your wikia settings of any kind. - Nìcmávr (Tálk) 17:23, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about this, I see and understand both sides of the spectrum and am in more incline to agree with a move, but one nagging problem will persist: Funding. How how does the staff plan on avoiding what happened the last time. I often see domain switches happen that end in disaster. And asking, or relying on the community for funding, won't always go as well as you plan, or think it will. And I am wondering how does the staff plan on handling a worst case scenario if it happens.

My other question is what happens to this place. You mentioned that for legal reasons you, and wikia can't just delete this wiki so what happens to it? do you lock every article and just move on or can you hide all of the content and replace the entire page with a redirect or a blank "we've moved!" page? Durandal-217 23:30, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

@Durandal: Porplemontage is handling all that. No exact details, but partly the income comes from ads on some of his other sites. While we don't know whether will ever need ads, if it does, they will be much less and more sparse and only for logged out users. Plus logged in users won't be forced to see main page ads, which again is a pro. Don't worry, financial concerns were the first to be addressed and settled.
As for the wikia site, we'll leave a note on the sitenotice to anon and logged in users about the move, which would direct most traffic to the new site. While the wiki site probably won't go totally dead, its like comparing Darthipedia on wikia which moved to Shoutwiki (just compare their recent changes activity). Dedicated members of their community moved while the wikia one is just edited occasionally by (mostly) people passing by - Nìcmávr (Tálk) 07:12, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
I would like to make a suggestion then If I may, if a move did occur, I would strongly suggest permanently locking all articles to avoid problems. Like Tony said the Halo community knows Halopedia at its current domain, and every time you type something Halo related on Google, Halopedia is the first thing to come up.
I won't lie though this is a very difficult matter to come to a conclusion on, its tough moving such a popular site off of a domain that won't let you remove your own site. I don't know anything about Oasis, but from the pictures I've seen, I'm not keen on it at all. At this point as Tony said we should wait and see what the future holds. If things get really bad. Make the move. Durandal-217 16:45, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
We can't lock all the articles because wikia wouldn't allow it (notice a pattern?). But there's there's ways around those concerns: Notes in the sitenotice and anonnotice, for example, to let visitors know that the "official Halopedia" has moved. The wikia counterpart would be a simple branch-off. Also, changing external links that link here (for example, Halopedia's template on wikipedia. Contributing factors, which will gradually direct our traffic and render the "official Halopedia". - Nìcmávr (Tálk) 16:56, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
Wow this domain really doesn't allow you to do much then. Durandal-217 18:32, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
Nope, which is sad. Wikia had the chance to please its community but sadly they decided to ignore them.- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 22:37, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

What I want to know is: what exactly is's capacity? 7,000 articles? 8,000? 10,000? pestilence Phil, pestilence! 23:05, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

FatalSnipe117: There's no limit to how many articles a wiki can have. Depends more on the space it has, but we have plenty of that over at so its not an issue. - Nìcmávr (Tálk) 16:05, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Now what happens when we abandon this place, is the staff still going to remain here or is there going to be a skeleton crew? because if we leave this place who is to stop all the anonymous trouble makers from inserting the most retarded adolescent level BS into articles? nobody can delete this place, nobody can lock all the articles or remove them, it would be exposed to the elements. Durandal-217 19:18, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, IP addresses are not able to edit the wiki (wikia did that a while ago). The block log shows vandalism has gone down by quite a few points, and yes, staff have and will always have admin access here. Although we'll leave notices to visitors that "we have moved", they'll probably still be a small number of occasional visitors who might make a few edits. Again, since it wouldn't any longer be the "official" Halopedia, what little of that happens won't concern us much, especially when the volume of traffic to the new Halopedia increases to what it is now on here. - Nìcmávr (Tálk) 19:28, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Not a really big concern, Nic. But will we still have access to #halopedia on freenode? Rico Croce

Of course. The IRC policy articles will also be on the import list, and we have an IRC app installed on the new wiki. Everything stays pretty much the same IRC-wise :P - Nìcmávr (Tálk) 21:05, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

I assume that the Halo Fanon wikia will remain as is. Therefore my question is, will it still be easy to link to Halopedian articles from Halo Fanon pages like users currently link to -TheLostJedi 13:27, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The linking system on wikis is universal. If you wish to link to something on, its precisely [ LinkTitle]. Nothing changes in that respect, it works as an external link the same way it currently does. - Nìcmávr (Tálk) 13:40, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Input vote

Below is the voting, as follows:

  • Support.svg Support = In favor of moving to
  • Halopedia Vote Symbol Neutral.svg Neutral = Not sure
  • Oppose.svg Oppose = Against moving to

NOTE: Prior to voting, users should make themselves familiar with Halopedia's Voting policy. Keep in mind that "Article Edits" are not the same as "Total Edits." The number of total edits is that which is found at the top of your user page. The number of article edits can be found on your Social Profile page, under "Statistics."

Support (34/4 sysops)

  • Support.svg Support I'm all for this move, mainly because Wikia often changes things to what users don't want. Halo Fanon is a good example. Love is Noise Love is PainLove is these blues 12:47, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support.svg Support I believe this will bring many welcome changes to Halopedia. My only concern is that the pages, which are over 5000 in quantity if I recall correctly, must be stored and transfered properly. The articles should be left up and running until we have secured them on the other site. Also, is it possible that we revert back to the old text editor we had before? The new one is far too complicated for someone who wants to get things done quick. -DinoBenn says "Fight to the End, Never Give In" 13:48, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support.svg Support Seems like the logical answer to solving this problem. Roy Mustang's mini-skirt 18:17, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support.svg Support Jack Phoenix Proxy vote via Roy Mustang's mini-skirt
  • Support.svg Support - As it is, I've always been in favour of having Halopedia on its own domain provided it could be supported. Though just as a note for those opposing, re-read what has been written in the reasonings and re-consider it; we're not moving for no reason. While many of the reasons are administrative ones, these will also have an effect on the community, which seals their importance. Frunner: You're entitled to your own opinion about wikia's theme, but I have to comment on point no. 2: Nothing stays the same. I too had the same concern but Porple has repeatedly confirmed he is this time (unlike 4 years ago) capable of supporting the wiki. Even if that's not enough to convince you, then how about the fact that he is currently hosting another 3 sites, one being mariowiki, which is twice our size? As for getting our users there: If the whole community votes on this, they'll obviously be aware, dedicated users aren't just going to get lost in the blue. Should this pass, anyone who doesn't want to move is welcome to stay, because wikia will not let the site go down. And for those who are opposing/supporting because of the skin, or just think we're the only site on the brink of moving away, check this out: - Nìcmávr (Tálk) 18:58, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support.svg Support - I wasn't really sure at first, both sides made compelling arguments, but I've decided to support this. Col. Snipes450 22:03, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support.svg Support - 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 22:20, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support.svg Support---~Mrepic~Talk to me 21:09, October 3, 2010 (UTC)-Mrepic 01:06, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
Does not have 50 edits-- Rusty - 112 02:08, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support.svg Support Being a long time member, I support the move. And any idiot who seriously votes against this because of point or edit count should probably have their vote removed for blatant idiocy. SPARTAN-118
You are clearly referring to me here, I am the only one who talked about the editcount. I have to say: 1) my reasons for opposing have nothing to do with that, it was just a question. 2) I could have opposed for any reasons I wanted, including the editcount one if I wanted, and that doesn't mean I am an idiot, and 3) who the hell are you to request my vote be deleted. -JEA13 [iTalk] 08:17, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
Its a stupid reason to oppose such a proposal. Edit count ultimately means nothing - just like the hideous mistake that was points, blogs, and the quizzes. Your reasons for voting how you did are your own, as you said above. Also, did I request your vote to be removed? Nope - reread my initial comment. SPARTAN-118
...AND AGAIN, the editcount was not my reason of opposition. Care to read what I say on my vote? That would be something I would happily talk about - JEA13 [iTalk] 19:41, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support.svg Support COOL! DARKSTORM99 07:03, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
Does not have 50 edits-- Rusty - 112 11:43, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
User does have 50 edits - actually has 75. SPARTAN-118
The count is ARTICLE EDITS, not total edits. Darkstorm only has 17 article edits, as can be seen at his social profile page here, under "Statistics."-- Rusty - 112 21:46, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support.svg Support - While the task is large, it will ultimately benefit us. The changes Wikia are forcing on us this time are too great, and we will suffer because of them. - Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 12:10, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support.svg Support - Obviously, the change will be huge and will have to be done gradually, but looking at Wikia's new skin and more importantly, the benefits of independence from Wikia, it's hard for me to find any good reason to oppose this. I believe the Halo community will eventually find the other site and get used to it, even if it takes some time. All I'm concerned about is the stability of the server, but then again, even Wikia has problems sometimes. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 16:04, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support.svg Support - In my opinion the imminent skin change will hurt the wiki more then moving ever could. The new skin, combined with changes to Wikia's Terms of Use that prevent the administration from using CSS and/or JS the way they see fit to customize the skin, will completely change the look of Halopedia as we know it. I've seen the skin, the articles will look weird and the overall layout of the site will confuse many people. At this point it would be better for Halopedia to be on its own and in a place where the administration and the community decide how the wiki looks, a place where the layout and overall "Halopedia experience" is only limited by the imagination and choices of the community. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 19:49, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support.svg Support - I am a beta tester for the new skin. It's horrible. ShadowBroker44 22:08, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support.svg Support - I have stood by Wikia for some time, and I really thought Wikia was a place where nothing goes wrong. Hah, boy was I wrong. When we move, I'll be happy to see the users have more rights than we have right now. I'm sick of constant advertising (I've seen many disturbing ads that I should not even describe)--Shade 00:42, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support.svg Support SOUNDS like it could work, and I'd hate to see this wiki get forced into changes that people would hate. Tuckerscreator(stalk)
  • Support.svg Support - strongly, even.Let's finish the fight. Phil.e. [Talk to me] 01:01, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support.svg Support - After thinking this again, I believe that we'll have more profits if we leave. With an independed site, we'll be able to avoid the Oasis skin along with the rest of filth Wikia is planning to bring the next days and we will have much more options on creating Halopedia's outlook. Besides, we aren't going to lose anything apart from the blogs (and the useless polls & quizzes). And financing is not a problem.--Odysseas-Spartan53 19:07, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support.svg Support -Considering this carefully i believe moving would be a great change and will really help many many users Spartan Drake-114, 3:45, October 5, 2010
Does not have 50 edits.-- Rusty - 112 19:51, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support.svg Support While there is something to be said for staying put, and we all understand that as Wikia provides the server space to us free of charge, the only caveat being revenue generating ads for unregistered users (we after all live in a Capitalist Society, or at least a good number of us do). The Changes being foisted on the Wikia community seem to be leaning towards damaging the community as it exists now in a marginal effort to increase their own revenues. If (and I haven't seen anything other than Oasis screenshots) Nicmavr and the other Beta testers are right and we're going to see dramatic changes in the wikia that affect it's readability and ease of navigation, not to mention a lot of hard work that many of us have put into creating templates and other items that will be seriously affected by the change, then wouldn't it be in the best interest of our Community to go somewhere that we have control of the changes, and where we as a community can make decisions to change if we deem it will improve the wiki. Wikia, by removing the choice from us, has really made the decision for us. Do we want a wiki that looks like everyone else or do we want one that is independent, has it's own voice and look and isn't just some faceless impersonal boilerplate? --Spamhammer "I reject your reality and substitute my own." 20:25, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support.svg Support I don't often come to this site anymore but I will say that the Halo Wikia (Halopedia) has always been independent it it's own right and if I say so my self sets a indisputable standard upon which most wikis cannot achieve and if this move helps further this site individuality and community base then I, Justin AKA Gamer4life/ Ekgladiator/ Sub-Scorpio/ Trumpeteer, Give you my full and earnest support in the moving of this site, LONG LIVE HALOPEDIA!!! EkgladiatorTalk
Less then 50 mainspace article edits. SPARTAN-118
  • Support.svg Support - We don't always like change, but sometimes it's necessary. Colonel DA 07:05, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support.svg Support I want whatever's best for this wiki, and this new format is bad for it. It makes stubs seem passable. If I have to sacrifice some convenience getting to the new domain then so be it. Frankly I'm worried about other gaming wikis as well, mainly the Metal Gear and Fallout wikis. I personally hope that they make the change as well, or that wikia returns to the original settings. Even if they reverted, Halopedia deserves a better host and the new domain would offer it just that. This wiki should be as great as the saga it covers, and anyone, anything, and any organization (except Bungie and their army of seventh columnists) who obstructs that should get out of the way. Without wikia we would never have existed and we must always remember that, BUT the same entity that created us is now hindering our true potential and we must stand firm against this threat to our existence. P.S. Merged pages don't get much love, so keep the MA37 as its own page lest it be neglected. TJbrena 19:54, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
Does not have 50 edits.- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 20:36, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

­­*Support.svg SupportAfter all it may be a good idea.CF001 00:21, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

  • Support.svg Support - Oh, I didn't realize it was possible to try out the new skin early. I've turned it on and... it's pretty bad. Yeah. It makes Wikia look worse than Wetpaint. It's a major fall in quality. I'm sorry, but looks better than Wikia right now. --Dragonclaws(talk) 06:31, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support.svg Support - After trying out the skin I am completely in support of the move, the new skin is just terrible--Soul reaper 11:12, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support.svg Support - Vile, Vile, Vile! Chakravartin My Wheel Shall Turn 19:25, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support.svg Support. Before you strike this !vote out, I have 5,000 edits across Wikia, so I'm established pretty much. I-20the highway 21:59, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
    • Less than 50 mainspace edits on Halopedia. / / STRYKER   [ COM | LOG/M | LOG/S | AAU/HUM ] 22:32, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
      • Whatever. Everyone is still entitled to their own opinion. I-20the highway 23:12, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support.svg Support I am ready for change. IT sounds fun. But you should have proposed this BEFORE Bungie's biggest game ever came out :) But it's all good. LETS DO THIS!!!Vegerot (talk) 23:26, October 7, 2010 (UTC)!!!!!!!!
  • Support.svg Weak Support - After much consideration, I have agreed with the above. The fact that it can't be customized by the administration is bad enough, but Nic also informed me that Wikia is planning on removing the social features; points, boards, etc. The old Halopedia has already gotten the social features installed, with less bugs, so why not? Wikia's done some questionable stuff in the past, but this is pushing it. General5 7
    • Reading the comments below, I'm a little more undecided, but still slightly on the support. General5 7
  • Support.svg Support - As per General5 7. -- Ultra Force (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 16:35, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support.svg Support - As per General5 7. No points or boards? Oh, I'm pissed mad now! pestilence Phil, pestilence! 00:15, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support.svg Support - OK. But needs a major graphic overhaul! -- RadiationNeon (CHATTER) 05:59, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support.svg Support - Okay, I've taken a look at the new skin, and I think it's horrid. The whole no points/boards thing doesn't help either. / / STRYKER   [ COM | LOG/M | LOG/S | AAU/HUM ] 00:48, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support.svg Support - Seems like its in the community's best interests. I'm in favour, so long as we can keep infoboxes, they're great. -TheLostJedi 01:23, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support.svg Support - I support the move, if only for the skin. I've never been much of a contributor (especially in the last year or so), but what I'm seeing out of wikia staff (not capitalized intentionally) is horrible. Turtleman579 03:50, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
User has less then 50 edits. SPARTAN-118
  • Support.svg Support - As per General5 7 and Halo-343. EtErNiTy92 Revolution! 20:24, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support.svg Support--Karl-591 00:02, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support.svg Support--Makes sense to move the site, besides we can always coem back if things don't work quite right or the money runs out. Rico Croce
  • Support.svg Support - I've seen the preview of the new version, and it looks bland, unintuitive...I can't say I'm impressed. -- Specops306 Autocrat Qur'a 'Morhek 21:46, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support.svg Support - Dragonblaze-052 02:32, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support.svg Support - I've just looked at the new wikia skin, and that alone is enough to change my vote --<<LOMI, The Lord of Fanon. Praise My Name, And Behold All My Holy Deeds>>
    16:05, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support.svg Support - Wikia ruined itself and because of that I vote MOVE. --Cally99117

Neutral (11/3 sysops)

  • Halopedia Vote Symbol Neutral.svg Neutral I feel attached to Wikia, who've been very nice to us considering all we've given them is ad revenue. Moving would be a radical change for the whole community. Besides, everyone knows Halopedia as now, including major Halo sites like HBO, and we might lose our relatively good standing in the Halo community. On the other hand, being Wikia's guinea pig and subjected to all these various updates has been restrictive for the Halopedia community, and it may very well be for the good of Halopedia as a community to move. As of this point, I am undecided. --Dragonclaws(talk) 19:14, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • Halopedia Vote Symbol Neutral.svg Neutral Now, while some people have good reasons as to why we shouldn't move, if things don't work out on we can always move back. Second Lieutenant Keith Johnson com link 21:10, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • Halopedia Vote Symbol Neutral.svg Neutral - As per Dragonclaws... General5 7
  • Halopedia Vote Symbol Neutral.svg Neutral - As per Dragonclaws. Habit and loyalty are two things that cannot be overlooked or underestimated. Over the years, we've become accustomed to Wikia, and moving would force everyone to get settled in a new environment. That being said, some of the concerns expressed by the supporters are valid, namely the new skin, freedom of the administration, etc. / / STRYKER   [ COM | LOG/M | LOG/S | AAU/HUM ] 02:36, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Halopedia Vote Symbol Neutral.svg Neutral - There's a real split here. As Dragonclaws said, Halopedia is known for being a wikia. Familiarity and all that. Also, it's nice to have a single account over all Wikia sites. Of course, an independant site could be nice. More control over every aspect of the wiki. A tighter community is always nice to have too. I think I could be satisfied either way. --DKong Talk Cont 02:45, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Halopedia Vote Symbol Neutral.svg Neutral — Like Dragonclaws said, the Halo community knows us for our current domain. While a switch to a new domain such as would be a smart thing to do when the release schedule wasn't so hectic...this is one retarded time to do it. Halo: Reach was just released, The Fall of Reach comics are in full swing, and the Forerunner Trilogy is due out by the end of the year. A simple button press that transfers all of our content from one wiki to the other doesn't necessarily mean a simple transition. While i'm definitely up for a domain switch if the Wikia Staffers stand their ground on the issue and don't intend to hear out the dozens of high-traffic wikis, i'm still open to see the new skin and the time they've put into it. Who knows...maybe the majority who haven't had a chance to use it will fall in love with it. Until the community as a whole can experience the new changes to Wikia and formulate an opinion, this proposal is extremely premature. CommanderTony October 3rd, 2010
  • Halopedia Vote Symbol Neutral.svg Neutral - I'm on the fence about this. REALLY on the fence. *sigh* Since I'm so uncertain, I'll let you guys figure it out. pestilence Phil, pestilence! 23:00, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Halopedia Vote Symbol Neutral.svg Neutral - As with Dragonclaws and CT up there. Grunt minion22 21:53 midwest, October 3rd, 2010
  • Halopedia Vote Symbol Neutral.svg Neutral - Let's just say I am using the new skin right now.. - JEA13 [iTalk] 17:56, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Halopedia Vote Symbol Neutral.svg Neutral — I'm not sure what this new skin looks like, but I definately don't want more ads on Halopedia. On the other hand, I don't want to see Halopedia collapse upon its self because of lack of funds or some other problem. That being said, I don't involve myself with the rest of the community that much, espescially with our elitist administrators. I'm just not around enough to really see whats going on. I feel that I am ill informed as to the changes that will come about to make a decision, especially with that biased commentary from Nicmavr. There will obviously be negative things that occur because of the move, but he seems to have conviently left those out. Carbine 14:02, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
    • On a side note, is there a particular reason DragonClaws' comment has a line through it? It seems to me that he is a very active member, not to mention an administrator, and therefore should have every right to vote here. What is that about? Carbine 14:02, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
He changed his vote to support. Regarding the new skin, you can try it out: Go to Special:Preferences -> Skin -> "New Wikia Look". As for funding, that's a sorted issue as the proposal has stated. - Nìcmávr (Tálk) 14:14, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • Halopedia Vote Symbol Neutral.svg Neutral - While I have read and acknowledged the fact about the skin change, and am aware of the risk of increased advertising. The financial risks and possible lack of awareness by going back to the old domain balance out the scales in my opinion.SomethingDifferent 06:18, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • Halopedia Vote Symbol Neutral.svg NeutralI'm not so sure yetAdmiralmorris 07:25, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • Halopedia Vote Symbol Neutral.svg Neutral I do agree as per Tony and Dragonclaws. Although Dragonclaws' vote may have been slashed through and changed to support, I still agree that our standing in the Halo community may waver around a little. Tony makes a good point that the transition between the two websites that may result in either people falling in love with it, or absolutely hating it. And as with a lot of new websites go, many technical difficulties, glitches, and complications may arise, but I can't put that up to blame, since things like these happen all the time and no matter what. I remain open and optimistic to the new changes, but to be honest, I don't see anything wrong with us now. --Blemo TALK CONTRIBUTIONSEMAILCALENDERMESSAGE
  • Halopedia Vote Symbol Neutral.svg Neutral - I've read the entire proposal and all the comments and votes; however, as I have been away, I have not had the chance to evaluate anything (hell, I didn't even know there was a new skin coming until Nicmavr told me). I am using the skin right now. Will report later. SmokeSound off!
  • Halopedia Vote Symbol Neutral.svg Neutral - Following 888th Avatar's comments, I return to undecided... --Dragonclaws(talk) 18:40, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • Halopedia Vote Symbol Neutral.svg Neutral - I still stand by my opinion that the new skin is very confusing to navigate, though Sansse points out that it can be customised. I really don't like the new layout, but I recall that the same was said last time Wikia made a major update introducing the blogs and so on. We seem to have done alright since then. I'll withold judgement for a while. -- Specops306 Autocrat Qur'a 'Morhek 23:58, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose (19/1 sysops)

  • Oppose.svg Oppose - failed to survive because it had too many articles (1,200-ish) and views. It simply became too expensive to run. I've tried Wikia's new skin, and it's not too bad. If you don't want it, it won't be forced onto you; just change your skin to monobook. Also, we have to think: "how many of us would actually move with the site?" We lost a lot of halopedians in the great move of 2006; how many will we loose in the great move of 2010?-- Forerunner 18:14, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify, it will be forced onto us. As of November 3, monobook, monaco, and any others will all be axed. - Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 20:42, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Monobook will remain an option and the main skin for Uncyclopedia and its sister projects. The downside to Monobook is that its severely outdated and unsuitable for Halopedia in its current state (just try it to see what I mean). But yes, unless you want to bear with that, Oasis is "forced upon you". - Nìcmávr (Tálk) 20:45, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
One more clarification, monobook will be available "for the time being", wikia plans to phase it out eventually. - ShadowBroker44 00:38, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
And yet another: we have no plans to remove Monobook (but we also don't want to promise "never" when we can't know the future) -- Sannse<staff /> (help forum | blog) 23:20, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose.svg Oppose - There's just no reason to move the site. pestilence Phil, pestilence! 15:04, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose.svg Oppose - I see no reason great enough for such a big change. Reddy645 18:33, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose.svg Oppose - As per Forerunner.Sith-venator Wavingstrider (Commlink) 19:32, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose.svg Oppose As per JEA13. -- Lord Hyren 19:43, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose.svg Oppose - As per Forerunner. Kronos101 20:12, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
I know half of you are going to kill me for posting this in the oppose area, but lets just count it as a reply to every single one of you: JEA: The Why section indeed describes what will change. The changes themselves are mostly the positive reasons which some of us are in favour of the move. Frunner: To answer your question, "how many users will we lose?" We won't be losing any users, because we now have the technical measures that didn't exist back in 2006. Times change, as do people. And Wikia's new Oasis skin as a matter of fact will be forced into anonymous users, and Monaco will be removed entirely for registered contributors. Besides, not everyone uses Monobook. FatalSnipe117: You are right on this, but why don't you go tell that to Wikia? I'm sure they're willing to listen to you and cancel the forced Oasis skin and let Monaco stay and allow admins to customize the site CSS and JS to their heart's content. The restrictions of Wikia's theme designer and their new version of Terms and Use regarding wiki-wide settings are a factor that contribute to the proposal. While I'm not forcing any of you to change your votes, the reason why I'm posting this is to clarify some of the confusing parts of the proposal that have caused questions or misunderstandings of its concept. If you read it again carefully (and that also applies to those who used "As per"), all of your arguments are addressed in either the changes or are answered in the questions section. - Nìcmávr (Tálk) 20:36, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
@Forerunner: Just adding to what Nicmavr has stated... The new Oasis skin will force articles to be squished, with 50% of the viewscreen unused/covered with advertisements. I don't know what screen resolution you're using, but in my current view, it's not pleasing to read an article and having advertisements being in your face. To put things into perspective, log out right now and try reading a long article in Halopedia (with ad-block program disabled). That's how annoying and unpleasant it is with Oasis. Additionally, the skin would not be customisable as Monaco. This means no more Halloween/Christmas/New Year/Product Launch theme and no more customised skin for individual users. All you have is a pre-set skin and a limited skin customisation.
To everyone, I would like to point out that an encyclopedia shouldn't be filled with advertisements around articles. Advertisements are annoying and distracting. Plus, no doubt in my mind that Wikia will keep on adding more advertisements into articles for more profit in future updates. The alternative skin, the Monobook, is severely outdated and does not reflect the quality Halo encyclopedia that is Halopedia. - 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 23:16, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
Does not have 50 edits-- Rusty - 112 02:08, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose.svg Oppose - This is the worst idea in the long, sad history of bad ideas, and I'm going to be there when you learn that it's even worse than taking dinosaurs off Isla Sorna. Kougermasters (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 00:54, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose.svg Oppose- As the old saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I simply fail to see how anything gained by moving will be worth the hassle. -- Rusty - 112 01:34, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose.svg Oppose- Same as everyone above. Plus, I like how Wikia runs. The Gamer 13 01:37, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
Does not have 50 edits-- Rusty - 112 02:08, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose.svg Oppose- Time and again this conversation has come up when Wiki proposed a change. Last time it came up when the points/rewards/social system of wiki was planned, and look, we embraced it so much most of you want to take it with you. Infact, most of you seem more upset about losing whatever things you've acquired here. And the complaints about Ads makes my physically sick. We complain about them hosting ads on basically a massive server they give us, free of charge. We complain about them, just wanting to be able to pay to host our articles. There's other things we'd lose with domain changes. Reliable service, most our articles, i imagine there'd be quite a hassle with GNU-stuffelz as well as losing most of our traffic. Is it really worth basically losing everything 'just so we dont have to look at ads and deal with new formats'. Just adapt and overcome as we always have. Ajax 013 03:26, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose.svg Oppose- As per Forerunner. //  SPARTAN-A110    talk    gallery    guestbook   03:28, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose.svg Oppose How i see it, is that you guys failed in the past and all of a sudden after wikia picked up your pieces, held us the community on a reliable site that wont shut down due to money issues. that you suddenly make the whole community go back towards your old wiki? Why should we all its unfair! your reasons are total rubbish. sorry you have lost my vote. wikia has not screwed up for anytime soon and the community is much stronger here. moving to another domain will lose hundreds of good wiki editors. we gain nothing and fall back a few years making it back upto what it is today. Why Fix something when there is nothing wrong with it?theironpaw 03:31, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose.svg Oppose From what I understand here, this seems to be the case of someone "abandoning his child", and 20 years in the future, the child becomes rich and famous, and the terrible parent who abandoned his child, upon seeing the child's new-found social status, wants the child back, for the sake of the privileges he can greedily enjoy. No. I am fine with Halopedia as it is. There isn't a need to merge, whether we gain or lose anything. That's my point of view. Flame me with you want, but I will remain firm.

Dark Neptune 06:29, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose.svg Oppose There is currently nothing wrong with at the moment, so there is no point in another move. JimMy StAcKeR 09:43, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

*Oppose.svg Oppose - Halopedia is fine as it is. By moving it, we aren't going to earn anything but frustration. And, frankly, the change of the current skin is definitely not a real reason to remove our entire database to another website. Yes, the new skin is more than terrible and if they apply it to Wikia many people will be annoyed but still I believe there must be more reasons to make this change.--Odysseas-Spartan53 17:33, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Ody, but I just had to reply to your comment:
"By moving it, we aren't going to earn anything but frustration." - [citation needed]
"I believe there must be more reasons to make this change" - I take it that you didn't read this page? At least that's the kind of an impression I'm getting from this comment. Otherwise, clarify so. - Nìcmávr (Tálk) 17:42, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
"I believe there must be more reasons to make this change" Read it again. I don't consider the stated reasons above important enough to support this move. That doesn't mean I haven't read the proposal. By the way, why did you specifically replied to my comment when there are votes with nothing but the user's signature? Just wondering.--Odysseas-Spartan53 17:54, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
Your comment just caught my attention... while you're entitled to your own opinion, I personally don't see why none of the reasons above hit you as "unimportant/not importsnt enough", including the skin, considering we're not the only one proposing to move off. Just wondered why, that's all. - Nìcmávr (Tálk) 18:00, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
While I agree that Wikia has taken the wrong way (the upcoming skin is terrible, even more advertisements), there is no reason to move, at least not yet. Now, if Wikia indeed proceeds to some important and unpopular changes that will affect our overall experience to the site, then yes, there would be a serious reason for moving.--Odysseas-Spartan53 18:15, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

*Oppose.svg Oppose - As per all the above users --<<LOMI, The Lord of Fanon. Praise My Name, And Behold All My Holy Deeds>>
19:57, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose.svg Oppose - I would have to agree with both Forerunner and FatalSnipe too. Sub-71 10:20, 5 October, 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose.svg Oppose - As per Forerunner. Please don't do this. EM
  • Oppose.svg Oppose - As per Forerunner. There isn't really enough reason to go through a potentially frustrating move-between. I say nay. GySgt. Gonzalez -Remember Reach!- 00:45, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose.svg Oppose - Too much hassle over negligible benefits. Wikia has done moderately squint-and-frown-inducing changes over time, and some of them I haven't agreed with, but they haven't done the proverbial baby-murdering spree yet. Having a working single login and Wikia's technical support is a good thing. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:51, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
I would really appreciate it if you (and others) explained why this is "too much hassle". If you read the outlined facts (the impression I'm getting is that you didn't), it makes it clear that the move is actually a very simple process. - Nìcmávr (Tálk) 14:08, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
Could you please tell why Wikia's technical support is so great in your opinion as opposed to the technical support I can and will provide for I'm a MediaWiki developer and the current maintainer of the SocialProfile extension (social tools), so I think it's reasonable to say that I know a thing or two about MediaWiki. I would also be interested in knowing how familiar you are or are not with Wikia's code and its quality. --Jack Phoenix 14:56, October 7, 2010 (UTC) proxy comment via Nicmavr
  • Oppose.svg Oppose- I prefer the wikia. It's more... I don't know... professional. People will be looking for Halo related sites via wikias, and ours will be gone.--Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato 23:52, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
Comment Picture.png Comment - Then we can just put a link up at the top of the main page providing a link to the new Halopedia.--Shade 00:38, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
We will be leaving notices up in the sitenotice and the main page to notify everyone that we've moved, so traffic is directed to the new domain. Everything is arranged and set in that area. - Nìcmávr (Tálk) 12:24, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose.svg Oppose - I think that what we have done here on Halopedia is fine! We need not change just because the opportunity is here! [[User:Epeu|Epeu]] 00:29, October 9, 2010 (UTC
Uh, did you even read - or understand - the reasons for the move? It's because Wikia is about to make using this wiki a chore, not because "the opportunity is here". Likewise, "what we have done here on Halopedia" doesn't have anything to do with it. Go try out the new skin to see what it's like. Or just wait until it's forced on everyone. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 07:42, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose.svg Oppose - If Halopedia moves, that would be extremely disappointing, and I firmly believe that it would also be a step in the wrong direction. I have heard arguments that Halopedia is deteriorating because of Wikia. That is not true. The health of a wiki is not measured by how its host treats it; it is determined by the spirit of its users and their continuing willingness to take part. If a wiki community falters, it is a problem that can only be resolved by the efforts of its own users. The wise person, faced with adversity, always considers improving themselves first, before starting on others. Appropriating blame onto others should not be done lightly. I have heard arguments that the new skin is very bad. This argument is all too familiar. I seem to recall that users were equally up in arms when Wikia wanted to bring in the current Monaco skin. Many grew to like it! How can anyone pass judgement on a product before they've tried it, before they've totally and utterly prove that it is complete rubbish? Also, nothing is yet to convince me that any kind of alternative host will maintain, or improve, traffic as it stands on Halopedia today. How can you prove that alternative hosts will always be relatively ad-free? There is one hard fact, and that is, hosting websites takes money. Hosting a relatively big website like Halopedia takes a lot of money. How do you get money? Through ads. Do donations work on wikis not the size of Wikipedia? No. In summary, I strongly urge reconsideration. I strongly urge an internal review of what can be improved - policy, community cohesion, whatever - before taking a risk such as this. This is a very risky move, and I believe that the risk is greater than the benefit. The 888th Avatar (talk) 13:57, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
Comment Picture.png Comment - The 888th Avatar, your vote is certainly interesting, but I'm afraid that your arguments are invalid.
  • That is not true. [citation needed]
  • How can anyone pass judgement on a product before they've tried it - I think that most people supporting this proposal actually have tried it and haven't liked it.
  • I strongly urge an internal review of what can be improved - policy, community cohesion, whatever - before taking a risk such as this. - So it's the fault of the community that they don't like the new skin (and many other Wikia updates)? This is certainly an interesting point of view, but I don't think that many people agree with you on this.
--Mary-Kate 10:52, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
Then you have misunderstood my argument. Using a skin for a month does not qualify anyone to pass judgement on whether it is a failure. I certainly have not - I am yet to decide whether the new skin is good or not. That can only be done over quite a few months - through an unbiased and objective evaluation of all the skin has to offer (or the problems it has associated). Dismissing the quality of a product in such a short amount of time - I don't think anyone even put any effort into a half-decent theme before staff members intervened - is like calling an election and saying the vote is tomorrow, or meeting someone of a different culture and concluding that healthy interaction will be impossible. It is risky, and a community as big as this should not take this kind of risk, at least not so quickly.
You took my final statements out of context. You have drawn a conclusion from my statements that does not logically follow. I suggested looking at alternative ways to improve the health of the wiki; you took that mean I was accusing Halopedia of taking the wrong opinion on something not even I have an opinion on. And by the tone of your comment, if you were trying to get me to change my point of view (which I doubt, but something you should have been aiming for by commenting or else just stayed quiet), you were not all too successful.
I add that I know that many may disagree with me, but I do have my own concerns about the health of the wiki community here. However, just moving the wiki elsewhere is not the solution to these problems. The solutions are in how the community interacts with each other and with other people. You want to know why many editors leave? Look no further than your own policies, and the way they have been enforced. Look at how many people are blocked infinitely, and how many people are blocked for apparently "abusing multiple accounts", when in many cases, it could simply be that the user wanted to change names and start again. Look at the way users revert edits indiscriminately without explanation of what the previous editor had done wrong, discouraging further edits. Look at the curt replies and ill-treatment new users often get when they accidentally do something wrong (how can you expect everyone to know every policy as soon as they start out?). It just doesn't make editing fun, and when you stop having fun, you leave.
I care about this wiki and its users. I cared so much that I became a rollback user, and did whatever I could here when I had the time, on one or two occasions helping out with the CSS. In no way am I saying anyone here is a bad person or is some kind of idiot for doing something I disagree with. I just think that the spirit of the place needs to be adjusted, so that the wiki as a whole is healthier, and less users feel encouraged to leave. This, in my opinion, would make Halopedia much more successful; it is a far better improvement option than a move that I suspect is rather populist in nature. The 888th Avatar (talk) 11:47, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the wiki policies and the blocking infinitely; those were drafted and amended by me, so I'll take the blame for that one. I was determined to resolve those issues had it been not for Wikia's late intervention and subsequent failure to acknowledge the problems we face.
"Look at how many people are blocked infinitely, and how many people are blocked for apparently "abusing multiple accounts", when in many cases, it could simply be that the user wanted to change names and start again." -- Those blocked infinitely can always contact the administration team to request to be unblocked; about 90% of the time are successful as the administration team understands how stupid Wikia's policy and systems in the past are. Even I was a victim of the infinite block because of their stupid policy. If anything, most of the users commented they were unaware that they created another account and that the system made them do it. I myself performed testruns over this issue and it is true; Wikia's account creation is the cause of this problem. If anything, blame Wikia for making the administration team to adopt this policy. Additionally, we always allow users to change their name for a good reason. Case in point is ODST Joshie, now know as Chakravartin, and a few others.
"Look at the way users revert edits indiscriminately without explanation of what the previous editor had done wrong, discouraging further edits." -- Rollback feature does not have a edit summaries. Undo does but has limited space. One cannot use edit summaries to deliver their reasoning. In Halopedia, the community has always adopted the "if you disagree, state in the talk page" approach, as that is how we settled disputes and what-not, and almost certainly a user will attempt to answer to their query. Edit-war is the unfortunate effect when a user is dissatisfied with the edit, something which we should never resort to.
"Look at the curt replies and ill-treatment new users often get when they accidentally do something wrong" -- For example? The administration team has always taken the professional approach unless the user starts breaking the rules and policies. During my administrative years, I have observed no major abuse from any administrative members and we have (or had) always acted fairly in administrating the site.
" It just doesn't make editing fun, and when you stop having fun, you leave." -- This largely translates to vandalism/add false information to most users. That's fun in the eyes of those in the Halo community. Stay longer and you'll see.
As for your last paragraph, it is the very same reason why I strived to become administrator and improve the site's content and administrative policies. To know a community, one needs to spend more time in them. Not saying that you're not part of the community or lack the understanding of the community, but in my most honest opinion this skin, along with all the absent features that Halopedia was largely designed for, is bad for the wiki and makes it harder for the community to progress.- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 12:34, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
888th Avatar: I understand and appreciate your concern about the risks, but this "risk" is actually a lot lower than what you might think. When I discovered Porple brought the original Halopedia back up, I did a lot of research and negotiations with him into performing this action before I created the proposal. Regarding your comment about the finances, everyone is assured that the site will be supported. I never said that would never have ads, but when/if it does, they would be less frequent than what they are on wikia now.
Furthermore, I have to agree with Subtank here. While we appreciate the time and effort wikia has put into the new skin, its simply something that doesn't work for Halopedia. For example, the navigation bar is restricted to 4 columns with 7 rows each, nowhere near enough for a wiki that's nearly 7000 articles large. Subtank, myself and many supporting this were beta testers in wikia's beta testing program for the skin, meaning that we've been using the skin for quite a while now and knew what has been coming. I'd also like to point out that there's quite a difference between a transition from Monobook to Monaco and a transition from Monaco to Oasis (if you haven't tried the skin yet, set it in your preferences, you'll see what I mean). - Nìcmávr (Tálk) 12:50, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your well-considered and thoughtful replies. Just before I say anything else, I'd just like to point out that I was part of the beta too; I do know what I'm talking about with the skin, I've tried its various themes, looked at its CSS, etc. etc. I just wanted to put that out there. :)
The main point I wanted to make with the infinite blocks is that very few wikis consider this to be a good practice. It's because of its finality - the IP address is literally banned from editing for eternity. Subtank mentions that 90% of users who email the admins to be unblocked are successful - I believe that. But what about the well-intentioned (but possibly not so good with the technology) users who don't try to contest their block? Not everyone is that determined. One hostile action against a new user often decides whether they stay or go. Why not minimise that possibility by not blocking users that create multiple accounts, and only block those that claim the accounts are different people in discussions?
The revert argument is an old one. I mentioned it when I first came here, I still believe it's not right. It doesn't matter how much time just pressing rollback saves. What matters most is the feelings of the reverted user, who may have been perfectly well-intentioned, even if their edits had some grammatical errors. The problem is that, again, lots of new users who've never used a wiki only realise that their edit was indiscriminately reverted - how do they know they're supposed to go through a discussion process? Hence, they feel bad, and they don't want to contribute again. And another consideration: wouldn't emphasising edit summaries save pointless talk page discussions anyway?
About the curt statements: yes, I've seen the work of all the admins, and I'll agree it is of a high standard. There is no abuse. However, sometimes a user can feel bad over some comments that did not try to empathise. This is an example of what I'm talking about. Couldn't there have been a bit more diplomacy, perhaps an explanation of why things are the way they are, rather than just stating the way they are? (By the way, I do not mean to accuse CommanderTony of being a bad admin; all evidence to the contrary.) And I hadn't done anything wrong: I had just made a recommendation.
Moving on to the technical stuff: Yes, I know the menu only gives a grand total of 28 links. I had to adjust it on Avatar Wiki just the other day and reduce a lot of menu options. But I disagree that it will only cause navigational headaches. I mean, even Wikipedia, with 3,000,000 articles, makes do with eleven sidebar links that could legitimately be considered as equivalents to our menus. It's not a disaster, it's just an adjustment. What I've actually found is that the reduced number of menu items draws attention to the important items, purely because users are less likely to be lost in all the menus, sub-menus, and sub-sub-menus.
As for features such as the social tools, I hardly believe they are worth the fuss. Halopedia got on fine without social tools, all the other wikis do just fine without them; I don't understand what is so crucial about them, especially considering as it's pretty much been progressively scaled down to be useful only for user pages (or user profiles, if you like). Its other features have mostly been duplicated over time, or have had some other feature introduced that adequately fulfils the purpose. Halopedia-style blogs with the much more wiki-like and simple blog articles. Polls with... you guessed it, polls. Ranks with Achievements (which can be requested, by the way). In any case, the whole system, as Halopedia itself admitted some time ago in discussion, distracted users from the core purpose of the wiki: maintaining a high-quality resource on Halo.
I plea that Halopedia reconsider, or at least postpone a move for several months until it the community is 100% certain that the new Wikia look is completely and utterly unworkable (and at the moment, while a majority of users want to, it's not even two thirds when counting just supports and opposes). The 888th Avatar (talk) 13:49, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
Its not really much about the social tools. There's a number of factors that contribute to the move, the skin and social tools being just one of them. I could care less about the points system, and I even drafted a proposal to have some of them switched off. The only feature I could say I'm fond of is the social profiles because they make communication easier and have privacy settings for messages. That aside, its just a factor. Not just to get away from or save something, but with things that we would gain with a move (for a typical move, this offers some insights). Final decisions are not necessarily taken according to vote counts (unless there's an overwhelming majority involved), which is precisely why we wanted as much feedback from the community as possible, and for that I thank you for yours :) - Nìcmávr (Tálk) 14:02, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
Regarding blocked users; there's a reason why we left a friendly message on how to settle it. It would be their fault for not asking to be unblocked. Regarding the revert argument; to be an active contributor, one needs to be tolerant and vigilant. If everyone is emotionally sensitive, then they should learn that in the internet, nobody one cares (sorry for the harshness but that's the tru7h). We're getting astray here...
I don't think it's a good example to compare Halopedia of 6,000+ articles with Wikipedia of 300,000,000+ articles. if anything, Wikipedia has too many policies/rule sets whereas Halopedia has several policies and rule sets, and borrows Wikipedia's to avoid wasting space. Also, regarding "What I've actually found is that the reduced number of menu items draws attention to the important items, purely because users are less likely to be lost in all the menus, sub-menus, and sub-sub-menus." -- Not in the case of Halopedia.
As for the social tools; Nicmavr has said it all. I would like to add that Halopedia's blog system doesn't appear in the RecentChanges like Wikia's current system, which clutters the whole page.- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 14:31, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion & Comments

Discussion relative to the proposal goes below here

Other wikis are considering a move to shout wiki so maybe that could be something to consider. That way our accounts can still be linked to other wikis registered to it. Plus it's set up the same way as the current wiki is.--Soul reaper 13:42, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone here ever heard the term "If it ain't broke, then don't fix it"? I'm just giving some input. pestilence Phil, pestilence! 15:17, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

Wikia prefers to ignore it. Looking at the condition of Halopedia, it's breaking down slowly....- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 23:17, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

But there will be Wikia changes which will see certain things REMOVED, such as the shoutbox.—This unsigned comment was made by Jaws Redfield (talkcontribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

For more information on the pros and cons, see WoWWiki's Moving out of Wikia Proposal.- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 23:21, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

I don't want sound pompous when I say this, as I have no idea if you have or haven't done this yet, but why don't you just ask Wikia to give the admins a higher degree of freedom? We are, after all, one of their largest and most viewed Wikis, and should have some say in what we do here. Tell them that you are ticked off with the changes they are doing here. Let them know that the community really wants their freedom. Let them know that the new skin SUCKS. Let them know that they've initiated a nose-dive. Anyways, not sure if you've come to that simple conclusion of communication, but you need to at least try before we do anything. pestilence Phil, pestilence! 00:30, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

The Administration Team has contacted Wikia Staff about the skin/system update and asked the wiki to remain free from the skin, and they kindly replied with a big no. Even WoWWiki, also one of Wikia's largest and most viewed wikis, is having the same treatment like all other wikis. There is no exceptions and it is inevitable. Trust me when I say this, it's not about the community that counts; it's all about the ka-ching!... - 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 00:38, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Everyone who is voting in favour of the move seems to be assuming that the current Wikia Halopedia will just give up, roll over, and slip silently into the night. But as you yourselves said, the Wikia version of the site would continue to operate. What if some of the users decide not to abide by your decision and follow you to the new site, but rather stay with the Wikia Halopedia? Well then we’d have two competing Halopedias, dividing the attention and efforts of Halo fans. How can that be considered good for the community? I personally will respect the decision which is made, and continue to be a member of Halopedia, no matter where it may be. Others however, may not be so conciliatory. Hell, this very debate itself has the possibility to become very nasty, and rip the Halopedia community apart.-- Rusty - 112 05:12, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

I think I will address Subtank's point here regarding the new skin: Both her and I are part of the beta testing so we've already experienced it to give you input. Many of the articles look squished, the theme designer is too restrictive. The new Terms of User are also very restrictive, global changes are no longer allowed. Mind, maybe I should have left this until 6th October, when all of you will have a chance to try it out in your preferences. Rusty; you're half right. The point is that if the dedicated community supports a move, we will do it and they would follow. If a large percentage opposes, as it is at the moment, the move simply won't be done. That's why we're seeking community input. But honestly, I can tell by the way many (not all, many) who have opposed have done so simply because they saw the other oppose votes, without even fully/properly reading the proposal to digest the facts, and jumped to their conclusions. Loss of traffic, loss of edits (lulz), "no real reason"... all of those are addressed in the proposal. In my opinion, those in the neutral section are the ones making the most sense in terms of arguments against the move. - Nìcmávr (Tálk) 07:12, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

@ Nicmavr, "Dark Neptune" Summed up exactly what you are doing now

"From what I understand here, this seems to be the case of someone "abandoning his child", and 20 years in the future, the child becomes rich and famous, and the terrible parent who abandoned his child, upon seeing the child's new-found social status, wants the child back, for the sake of the privileges he can greedily enjoy."
— Dark Neptune

and yes most of us have read what are the changes but all i see is that you have no real Hardcore reason to move its more like your complaining about the size of the page and squished articles, thats not a big deal its Not like they are booting us from the site in fact no threat has come to us that we have TO Move in fact everything is perfectly fine. theironpaw 07:49, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Correction: the child wants to go back to its father, not the other way round. Quotes aside, again, the reasons are written above, nobody said they were "hardcore". And as for the skin, you're 3 days away from trying it out yourself. Opinions vary from person to person, if you like it, no one's forcing you to leave. But frankly, I just think its too restrictive (if you haven't seen it yet, I suggest you check it out), and yes, I can tell you that from now. Allow me to point out that some of us in the support section, specifically myself and Subtank (she did a nice job of summing stuff up) are part of wikia's beta testing, and have thus already experienced it admin and user-wise. Its not the squished article's on their own. Many of our articles have infoboxes and/or large images which cramp everything up, and that is a big deal. - Nìcmávr (Tálk) 08:55, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
And the father was lost at sea. He didn't abandon anyone out of sheer neglect. --Dragonclaws(talk) 19:03, October 3, 2010 (UTC)


I've decided to write this up to outline the proposal's concepts, gains, losses, etc in a simpler way for those of you who may have misunderstood, judging by what you reasoned in your (not necessarily opposing) votes:


  • Moving Halopedia off wikia and its current domain ( to its new, independent domain ( How it would be done: An exporting tool allows us to export the wiki's content (articles of all namespaces) in the form of an xml dump file, which would then be imported to the new wiki, with an importing tool. Don't be thinking that we'd manually copy every article, or we just wouldn't go with a move-off. We have tools, some of which we didn't have back in the old days, which make things a lot more simple. Moving everything is a lot easier than some of you might think.


  • Better control; Software, updates, new features and such will be handled by the local admins. Admins will allow or deny new features, updates, software, etc based on input from the community. In our current state, local community opinions pretty much no effect on wikia's updates, because all updates and new features are enabled globally, on all wikia wikis.
  • Developer support; will have its own specific developer support working for the standalone wiki, and pertaining to the above point, in co-operation with the administration due to its independence nature. At our current state, our local community cannot give as much voice on wikia's updates because they implement them globally, on every wikia wiki.
  • Reduction of ads; while there's no promise that will never have ads, if it does, they will be much less of them, and only for logged out users and no force upon the logged-in ones to have them on the Main Page, which makes a good plus.
  • Wider skin choice; for those who dislike wikia's new skin, currently has two skins enabled; Monobook and Vector, and plans are to have Monaco installed as well. As well as retaining the look we've all got used to over the months/years, we would have more options. Vector specifically, is a good skin for those who are experienced wikipedia editors.
  • Security and maintenance; the independence of the site will allow the administrators access to extra tools which they don't have on Wikia Halopedia. This means that admins (being the Wikia staff equivelent on the new site) will be able to handle security or maintenance related requests of a wider range than we can now. The advantage that this brings is that it is always better to be able to consult your local administration about just about anything if possible, rather than taking it to an outlanding staffer (who also has more wikis to handle than just your own).
  • Appearance; wikia's new skin will ultimately restrict our wiki's theme as much as it could ever do. As you see Halopedia in its theme (that is has always had), that will be gone when the new skin rolls in, and admins will not be allowed to customize the site's global CSS and/or JS. That also means we will no longer be able to make up themes for events like product releases, Christmas and Halloween. For those of you who dislike the new skin, the move will "save" Halopedia from this restriction. With the new skin and its theme designer, the only things you have are preset themes and limited customization, nowhere near able to make up what themes I mentioned above.


  • The blog features: Due to the code being unusable, the blogs will not be able to be installed on the new wiki. As someone who rarely uses this feature, in my opinion, isn't really a big deal when you think about the advantages. Plus, the blog system has historically suffered a lot of abuse, and to this day there are countless blogs lying around in the database that go against the guidelines and should be deleted, but haven't due to their vast numbers. Even with that said, we'll be looking into alternatives for this loss, while forum-ish things can be written on the site's Forum: namespace.
  • Other than that, that is (as far as foreseen) the only thing we cannot take with us. We've done (and are still doing) what we can to minimize the losses as much as possible.

What stays the same

  • User rights; as I've said above, anybody who holds a form of rights (sysop, rollback, etc) will be given them on the new site upon moving in.
  • Edit count: All articles in every namespace will be imported to the new site. Because the histories will also be imported, so will every user's edits.
  • Social Profiles: The social profile extension, unlike the blogs, has usable open-source code and has in fact, already been installed on, along with the points system and has various bug fixes due to being an updated version. Users will be able to use it in exactly the same way they currently do.

Additional comments

  • While this is indeed a big move, it is not as hard to make as it seems. When you think about it being a success, we will have just about everything we currently have; those of you who are concerned we will lose traffic: Yes, at first this might be true, but we also have plans to solve that issue. External links pointing here (ie. Halopedia's template on wikipedia) will be changed to point to the new site. Notices will be left on the sitenotice and anonnotice (for anonymous users, which largely makes up our traffic). As the articles become implemented, activity on the new wiki rises, the site will become promoted on search results. Sure, the world might know us as a wikia wiki; that doesn't mean that can't be changed. Its a gradual, but possible move. And on the topic of wikia's skin, we're not known to be cloaked in it, either. Appearance-wise, if we move, we will be know as the Halopedia we've always been known as (as Jedimca0 pointed out). For those concerned, yes, this is a big move and yes, we know it will not happen in one second, its all gradual but not necessarily with a very long/extended period. However, I'd like to re-assure you all once again that its a lot easier than it seems, but ultimately, it will only be done if its given the support it needs. - Nìcmávr (Tálk) 15:45, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Kougermasters (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 23:59, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Corruption? Never heard of it.- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 16:53, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in particular, and I'm sure many of you have good, logical reasons for opposition, but what I'm seeing here is that most of the opposition seems to be more grounded on emotion rather than reason. I think it's because many tend to fear change itself instead of actually thinking about the matter. Some oppose this because of something that happened years ago and that's understandable. What people should understand is that this is a different case than back then: as Nicmavr has made clear, we now have a lot better tools at out disposal and basically, all that would change to the average user is the domain name. Now, if we stay at Wikia, a lot more will change. We'll have a new, impractical skin, a lot more ads and constant (not always beneficial) updates forced on us. Complete independence alone would be a good reason to move. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 18:32, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the new skin, I honestly don't see any major issues with it. The only things that we'd truly need to spice up to make it work well here on Halopedia, namely, the "sidebar" at the top of the page and links for easy access to creating pages and uploading images. CommanderTony October 6th, 2010

  • And therein might lie the real problem. With the recent changes to the Terms of Use, I'm not sure if you're going to be allowed to make those changes to the skin. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 09:58, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
Ditto Jedimca0, you can't. The new terms of use do not allow the modification of site-wide settings, including but not limited to size of article space, ads and skin layout/design. Actually, it applies to site-wide settings of any kind. Which in my opinion just isn't good enough. We'd want our users to have the meaning/feeling of "Halopedia" (I don't think I need to explain that in detail), not some plain, neutral "Wikia" wiki. Sure we're hosted by them, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to customize ourselves like we can at present with the monaco skin. - Nìcmávr (Tálk) 14:08, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I think it's a good idea to wait for the new skin to come into place and then make a judgment when everyone's caught up. --Dragonclaws(talk) 05:03, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

I tried the Oasis skin and I'm afraid that its much worser than I expected.

0) The random link option won't work. (?)

1) There is no Shoutbox

2) The space you have when you edit a page is significantly reduced.

3) There is a wonderful sidebar at the top that contains some uneeded links that most of us would never use. Master chief (main page access from everywhere) is gone :P

4) If you have a medium sized userpage or anything bigger, it will be scrapped. Same for all sizable articles. Halopedia is 100% unproper for the new skin. The images on articles show the user who added them!

5) I'm still looking on how I can access to all of the options available on Monaco :P

To all those who oppose our leaving: Do you like this?

Please tell me.--Odysseas-Spartan53 05:10, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Not related in any way to the skin, but what Firefox theme are you using? It's really nice! :P - 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 16:44, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't. The sidebar is too large, the infobox is squished and the article's text area is just crammed. Administrator-wise, the skin customization is too plain for Halopedia. For example, you can't have banners, something that we've been known as appearance-wise for a quite a long time. - Nìcmávr (Tálk) 14:08, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

(OOT):@Subtank and everyone else who wants to know: The skin is called "Rein". By searching in the Firefox theme page, you will be able to find it.--Odysseas-Spartan53 19:36, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

When exactly does the voting end?--Gangsta Grunt 21:40, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

No set date yet, but we'll have notices put up to notify everyone when/if we move. - Nìcmávr (Tálk) 12:24, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

I would like to make a suggestion: Why don't we make have a trial run. Assuming that this passes, this wiki will be all but abandoned. However, I think we should run this with all of the new formats being forced by wikia, at the same time as we transfer the site over. If there are some huge, unforseen issues, we can more readily compare the two sites. pestilence Phil, pestilence! 00:10, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

FatalSnipe: You could say that's what many of us have done/are already doing. You can try the new skin out for yourself by going to Special:Preferences -> Skin -> Set the "New Wikia Look". Just browse around with it a bit and evaluate it :) - Nìcmávr (Tálk) 05:52, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Theme choices

Purple and green? Really? It's not very... Halopedia. How about a real theme? -- Sannse<staff /> (help forum | blog) 00:32, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

Theme, no. A real skin...yes. :) CommanderTony October 11th, 2010
Well, for a fairer comparison, I've put up something a bit more realistic :) -- Sannse<staff /> (help forum | blog) 02:25, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
Quite frankly, Halopedia's concern isn't about it's current Oasis's with Oasis itself. We could care less what image is behind the article. CommanderTony October 11th, 2010
I understand that, but I do think it's fair that everyone sees the skin at its best, rather than the delightful purple and green ;)
I know that as staff it's hard for me to be believable on this -- but once I got used to the new button placements, I honestly believe that the new look is better to use that Monaco. And I say that as someone who has been on wikis for 8 years or so and been through many skin changes (including the one to Monobook) -- Sannse<staff /> (help forum | blog) 20:29, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
Sannse, I'm not trying to sound blunt, but there's a big difference between a transition from Monobook to Monaco and a transition from Monaco to Oasis. Don't get me wrong, we greatly appreciate what you and everyone else at wikia have done for us and the time you've put into the development work, but like many across wikia, a lot of us feel that Oasis just isn't "compatible" appearance-wise for our wiki. Like CommanderTony said, Halopedia's concern is with the skin itself. If you want a few definitions, its things like the narrow article space, the overly large box on the right, reduced customization options, etc. In my humble opinion, if you and the staffers re-evaluated some of these and made them comply at least to an extent to what (almost) everyone on the staff blog is asking begging for, I'm sure the negative feedback you're getting at present will go down by quite a few notches. ;) - Nìcmávr (Tálk) 21:04, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
I've changed from "Classic" to "Monobook", then "Monobook" to "Monaco", and now "Monaco" to "Wikia". And I guess you could count the experiments with "Quartz" and "Monaco" to "New Monaco" in there too :P
And don't forget that I'm making this transition with you, I now use the wikia theme daily and only switch to Monaco when I have to do so to test something.
One other thing I want to be sure to say... the skin is a work in progress. A vital part of the release for us is monitoring how it's actually used in practice as it gets rolled out. Do people find it easier to make pages and so create more? Do more people understand what a wiki is and get involved? Does it create healthier more active wikis? Those are all questions that will only be answered in time, and I promise you we are asking them. We want this skin to succeed, and we believe it will -- we wouldn't be doing this otherwise! -- Sannse<staff /> (help forum | blog) 00:21, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
Wikia has everything under control. You're all panicking for no reason :) Kougermasters (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 22:31, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me I know this is way off topic but I don't know where or who to ask, but did wikia remove the social profiles, message system, and blog listings? Every time I go to my profile to go see my watchlist, I'm greeted by a blank page. I've had to bookmark my watchlist just to get to it now. Durandal-217 05:55, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, social features are gone for good. The only way we could get them back is on - Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 06:36, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Plus, the voting-thingy system is gone as well, all I see up there is


.   SPARTAN-A110    [COM]    [GAL/Y]    [G/BOOK]   06:50, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

That's because the {{Ratings}} template no longer works. I'll see what I can do about that. - Nìcmávr (Tálk) 12:34, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why wikia would introduce good features and then take them away, I didn't use it to much but more times then often I would use the message system to get in contact with somebody, it was effective, simple and easy. Now I find it retarded to have to go to somebody's talk page which is more primitive then email. Come on man. Durandal-217 20:34, October 16, 2010 (UTC)