Forager Wiki talk:Community portal

[Please start new messages at the bottom of the page or click this link to add a new section.]

Uniting this wiki with Fandom's Forager community
For those who have not yet heard: Last year, Gamepedia and Fandom joined forces and are now two platforms on the same network. Later this year, we'll even become one unified platform. The teams at both Gamepedia and Fandom want to encourage our communities to work together now instead of splitting their efforts and competing with each other for readers and new editors. I'd like to know how all of you here feel about uniting with Fandom's Forager community. That would mean we archive one wiki - lock it from editing but keep the pages accessible to readers - and put a banner up that directs visitors towards the other, active wiki. Anyone who used to edit the now-archived wiki would be able to contribute to the active wiki, and any content on one side that's missing on the other can be moved over with edit histories intact. Note: No merger will take place if both communities don't agree to it. The advantages of becoming one community working together are clear: By working together, all fans of Forager could build a resource on the game more effectively, keep it up-to-date more easily, and players would no longer be confused as to which site they should turn to for information. This Gamepedia wiki sees significantly more traffic than the Fandom wiki which makes this the obvious choice to be the main wiki. So this means nothing really has to change for you except to welcome in some new editors from Fandom to work on the wiki with you. It's a win win! Can't wait to hear what you think! Heytots (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Depending on what the admins of both wikis think, I think it's a great idea. I bought the game a few weeks ago and have been trying to get the hang of it, but it's really hard when I have to rely on one wiki (usually defaulting to this one) for some information and the other wiki for the rest of it. I've noticed, for instance, that this wiki doesn't go very deep within of its articles. If I want in-depth information about an item or object, I have to go to the other. I considered seeing if I can help with that by drafting some expanded pages for some items, but I'm a college student first and can't spend time drafting pages if I'm not even sure the admins want what I have. In fact, that's initially why I came to the community portal talk: to propose some expansion like this. So, for more information on my ideas for expanding this wiki (regardless of outcome of the merger proposal), refer to the topic below!-- 15:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Can we please look into expanding items, objects, structures, etc.?
following up on what I said in the topic above, I had some ideas on how this wiki could be expanded and improved to be more comprehensive. Having just bought the game a few weeks ago, I've been trying to get the hang of it but it's hard when the wiki doesn't have as much information as I feel it should. Currently, instead of having individual pages, we seem to have a ton of redirects to "group pages" like Materials (most crafting ingredients redirect here, even those that might benefit from elaboration like Bottled Torchbug and Locomotive), Structures (player-placed buildings, such as those used for crafting and storage), Tools, and so forth. It sort of works, but there are some things, such as the Shrine structure, for which one or two sentences in a table just doesn't cut it. I don't see a reason we should be limiting the depth of information, and feel the current group pages would make more sense as pages in the Category namespace, with individual pages linking to them instead of redirecting. If I had some time, I would even draft up some example pages and other proofs of concept in a sandbox under my User Page, but as I said above, I'm a college student and I'm honestly procrastinating just to write this.-- 15:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)