Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-116693-20130624201511/@comment-116693-20130624203335

1. I'm good with destiny.wikia. Simpler, easier, more consistent with other wikis in the network. The downside is that destinypedia.wikia is "already out there" and frequently cited. The upside is that the game isn't out yet and, considering a likely 10-year lifetime for Destiny, we're still early enough in the cycle that the damage won't be too bad. There will be some legwork to do in terms of updating old links, but the benefits outweigh the detriments, I think.

2. I think "Destinypedia" is catchy and works well. We've been using this name since 2011 and people have gotten used to it. It matches up to the established social networking accounts and other sites that refer to us. And yes, I'll admit, I'm fairly attached to the name, but might be able to be swayed otherwise if opinions are strong. :-)

3. Our layouts are actually similar in some ways and different in others, but I tend to defer to the judgment of others when it comes to visualization. I do reserve the right to say if I hate something, though. :-D I haven't gone through destiny.wikia in enough depth to have specific comments here.

4. Comments pending.

5. Comments pending.

6. I'm a stickler for proper English, consistent writing styles, and flawless grammar/spelling. I'll admit it, I can be a bit pushy when it comes to this. When it comes to citations and references, I like a more Wikipedia-style, disciplined footnote and references system, but it's really all kind of moot; a complicated footnotes and references system is just going to be confusing for new users, a pain for admins, and will be largely useless for the vast, vast majority of articles created for a game wiki once the game is launched. For now, I'm okay with sources merely being cited at the bottom of the article without having to go through the pain of creating and double-checking references.

7. None yet :-)