Forum:Was the move a bad idea?

Check Recent Changes. We've got more mainspace edits, which is really all that matters. -- 16:27, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

We don't have to use Oasis anymore, and readers don't have to see Oasis when they read. Yeah, as Crono hinted on, we've got the harder workers at this wiki, while the rest stayed at wikia. We no longer have wikia staff breathing down our necks either, which is definitely a plus. I have no idea where you got "more cleaned up" from. 16:43, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

I meant some of our pages are kinda blank and they have more that are finished. My best example Is battle missions. P.S. If something I put down on the forum it's because I'm on my iPod instead of computer.

Wikia's editors are also very disorganized, look at their recent forums. Many of their edits are to the user talk space, and plus, our version of Battle Missions will be superior to theirs. 18:21, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

I just need to say this; Hell no. 19:09, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

I response to your points:


 * A page with less content is definitly not a bad thing. Most of the "new content" on the Wikia wiki is speculation, which is bad.
 * True, Wikia is hauling in a large majority of the new users, but that doesn't matter. If you check this, at the very bottom, you will notice that we have at least 50 users that have made a total of 600 edits have editted here since the site was set up.
 * No. In no possible way was it a bad idea.  The problem with Wikia wasn't really about Oasis.  While that was a big part of it, it was more about the fact that Wikia wouldn't listen to its users, the ones who made its bloody content.  They constantly forced inappropriatly crappy updates on us, and we had enough.

21:33, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

Actually, I think she was refering to wikis that were created years ago, have about two articles, and no editors. That, on the other hand, is extremely immoral, as those wikis have next to no viewers, and yet Wikia keeps them alive for the sake of the ads displayed there. 11:59, 7 May 2011 (EDT)