Talk:Fandom (website)/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Comments

Baltic states Wiki [[1]] has 86 pages and Althistory Wiki [[2]] has 16,750 pages.86.24.13.136 (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Please allow file Wikia Block User.jpg

What is going to happen if I place File:Wikia Block User.jpg? And, articles should be filled with Images, right? Can anybody reply to me? Dipankan ^{In the woods?} 05:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my edit summary, the image is not noteworthy, nor indeed specific to Wikia (being a screenshot of MediaWiki software). There may also be copyright implications. For what reason should the image be included? What does it add to the article? — Manticore 13:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki is free software. →Στc. 21:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I tested it in my sandbox, and it does not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walex03 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Or at least in the commons no.

[[File:Wink.jpg]] (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC).

Unverifiable allegations

I apologize for removing large parts of the controversy section without discussion, but the claims that Wikia made changes "against contributors' wishes" and many of its wikis revolted because of that seem contrived, and the only sources that back these statements up are wikis, which are naturally unreliable. If anyone can find a real source to prove that there's been criticism as a direct result of these changes, I'd be glad to keep the information intact, but we should keep it out until then to avoid hurting the company's reputation. ~jcm 19:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

They aren't all wikis. References 53-58 are news references. I think you'd be better off taking this in chunks rather than trying to attack the entire controversies section at once. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I had taken those into account during my edit, and I simply modified the paragraphs that were adequately sourced to better reflect those sources. The part I mostly have a problem with is everything under Domain and skin assimilation, since that's where most of the bad sourcing comes in. ~jcm 20:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I agree with you there; however, I feel the information is very useful (if not a little longer than necessary) and should be kept if it can be supported by more reliable sources. What would you think of either hiding the content or moving it to the talk page for it to be worked on? Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll fully support whichever option you think works best. I agree with what you said about the information being useful, and with a little cleaning up and more verification, it would fit into the article nicely. ~jcm 20:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I have moved the material to the talk page. So it can be supported by more reliable and/or third party sources. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

If you follow some of the links you will find they also have sources, and while in some cases not meeting Wikipedia's sense of a reliable source, they are still ones more permanent than wiki articles. The best example I can give is http://doomwiki.org/wiki/Doom_Wiki:Departure_from_Wikia - as a member of the team that worked for nine whole months on migrating this wiki off Wikia for all of the below mentioned reasons, I can assure you that the outrage was both very real and very widespread. The majority of the wikis listed below wouldn't exist if Wikia hadn't forced migration to their horrible new "Wikia" skin against widespread objections. The now-defunct Anti-Wikia-Alliance was formed on Wikia's own admin area, until it was kicked out by hostile mods. Wikia's reputation doesn't need any help becoming bad, they ruined it long ago with their own profit-minded actions. Follow my link and you will find, for example, a link to a news post on doomworld.com referencing the wiki move and the reason for it. --QuasarTE (talk) 05:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The Anti-Wikia alliance still exists at http://awa.shoutwiki.com and there is an earlier archive of Wikia-specific issues at http://complaintwiki.org which dates from the first batch of forced reskins in 2008. The article also needs to mention the Russian (2010) and English (2013) Uncyclopedias have left Wikia. K7L (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Domain and skin assimilation

File:FingerLakesWiki.png

The main page of a Wikia site with the defunct "Monaco" skin.

File:RedDeadWiki.png

An article as seen with Wikia's new skin.

Wikia has merged separately founded wikis, such as Uncyclopedia, to subdomains of wikia.com against contributors' wishes, citing a need to boost its attractiveness to advertisers. The company intended to merge Memory Alpha, WoWWiki, and Zelda Wiki in a similar fashion; the proposal was successfully opposed by users of all three sites. Zelda Wiki is still an independent wiki, while WoWWiki and Memory Alpha were merged but allowed to keep their domain names.

In June 2008, Wikia adopted a new skin, Monaco, intending to implement it as the default on almost all hosted wikis. The skin had an uneven reception, with issues over the prominent branding, in-content format-altering ads, and the mandatory nature of the change. Many wiki users felt the choice of skin default should remain their own. The switch went ahead, but some wikis retained Monobook as their default. In September 2008, the Transformers Wikia moved content to their own server, citing the format-altering ads and mandatory changes as reasons for their departure. WikiFur moved likewise in August 2009.

In May 2009, Wikia removed the ability of individual users to choose a skin other than Monaco or Monobook, claiming a testing burden and relative lack of features. Soon after, Wikia removed the option to set the default skin to Monobook, with the exception of certain large wikis, namely, Uncyclopedia.

In August 2010, Wikia announced a new mandatory skin change, this time to a new look nicknamed "Oasis". The new skin omitted several features, such as the popular shoutbox. On September 23, 2010, Wikia introduced the new skin in public beta with the option to be the default skin for certain wikis, like Muppet Wiki. Wikia also revealed the official name of the new skin, Wikia. The Wikia skin became the default skin on Wikia on November 3, 2010. Wikia also changed the Terms of Use, prohibiting any modification that changes the default layout of the skin. As a result of the skin change, some users have proposed to move their wikis to another wiki farm and have created an "Anti-Wikia Alliance" with comments against the new skin, links to wiki farms and a database to keep all the moving wikis. Some wikis, like Guildwiki, have moved from Wikia to Curse.com, but decided to leave a presence on Wikia, but with a different purpose from their main site on a new host. Some large wikis like Halopedia, Club Penguin Wiki, WikiSimpsons and Grand Theft Wiki have already moved, while others such as MicroWiki, SmashWiki, WoWWiki, The Vault, Touhou Wiki, the Doom Wiki, and Half-Life Wiki (known as Combine OverWiki) have all moved from Wikia also. The new look has been described by Wikia as "sleek" and is supposed to be helpful to new users, but many of the changes have drawn criticism from older users. One such criticism is the greatly reduced width of page content, causing infoboxes and other templates to break the page if they go beyond the fixed margin. Because of this, subdomains such as Marvel Database and DozerfleetWiki have put notices on their front pages strongly encouraging users to switch their personal preferences to Monobook to make the sites easier to use.

References

More than 10 million additional funding

New info for article: "For-profit Wikia raises $10 million third round" "Wikia Inc. ... has closed a nearly $10.9 million Series C round of funding ... The San Francisco company, which has now raised about $25 million ...." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Biggest Wikis/WAM

IMO We should add a section about biggest wikis. http://wikia.com/WAM should have the info relating to that. Should I add that in? Tech Addict, Fan-Fiction Writer, and Aspiring Filmaker 17:37, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

Bloat

Why Wikipedia comparing to Wikia is so overwhelmingly overbloated with its rules? Wikia rule is simpler. As long as you do not gibberish and do not adulterish, as long it's ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.229.235.250 (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the place for policy discussion. Wikia allows individual wikis to create most of their own policies. Thus you'll find that many wikis there are lax and some are more restrictive. Even different language editions of Wikipedia have different sets of polices, so it isn't really fair to compare the English Wikipedia to an entire collection of wikis. 71.60.164.66 (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"People who use Wikia..."

The sentence "People who use Wikia are called Wikians." should be reworded. People are people and nothing else depending what they use and not use. --CheatCat (talk) 08:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Says the Wikipedian. GreenReaper (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikia?

There a WikiProject for Wikia? -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm having a lot of fun at Wikia. My username is Variousthings3251.82.114.35.202 (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikia is like the cancer of the Internet. Like bonjour, mon amore~ 23:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Marketing spending

In November 2006, Wikia claimed to have spent only $5.74 on marketing, while generating 40 to 50 million page views

That's what the source says, but it can't possibly be true:

Until the ArmchairGM acquisition, Wikia's more than 1 million users came almost entirely through word of mouth. Penchina said he's spent a mere $5.74 on marketing to generate 40 to 50 million page views during November, roughly on par with several major newspapers' Web sites.

That's presumably $5.74mln, not price of two beers. Taw (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Highly unlikely. I think the source incorrectly implies that the marketing generated the page views, when in fact (as implied by the previous sentence) almost all came by organic search results and links. Maybe they had a tiny AdWords campaign running as well and the figure came from that. GreenReaper (talk) 04:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikia policies apply to Wikipedia

Hi, does some policies from Wikia can apply to Wikipedia because I want to include an image or signature templates on talk pages? So why this isn't Wikia? --Allen ^talk 05:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikia is not related to Wikipedia. Both platforms have their own rules.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 16:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia edits COI

I am declaring a COI for my edits on this page. I am working on behalf of Wikia to make edits, and will endeavor to stay fully neutral and within Wikipedia's policies. Yogi Beara (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

WHY YOU WORK FOR WIKIA??? Like bonjour, mon amore~ 03:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

This

Is it really a Wikia controversy? Wikia has no involvement into the controversy–other than hosting the wiki–and there are plenty of controversial Wikia wikis that have no mention. There's better places to put this, but does it really warrant to be put here? Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 23:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, it isn't really a controversy – so it shouldn't be in that section. It should be under trivia or something. --Musdan77 (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Tempted to remove the RFC tag -- This RFC was not worded properly, editors being called in by the 'bot have no idea what you are asking about because the rFC does not state clearly what issues of contention are and what third party opinions you are seeking. Damotclese (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Trivia that is un-related to the article-subject except in a "connect the dots" kind of way. Not even appropriate for the Creepypasta page, given that the only sources provided are local. We do not have a "crime beat" page covering every local homicide or burglary. CorporateM (Talk) 16:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I have boldly removed the content here for anyone who wishes to see it. I also gave the article a once-over removing primary sources, community pages that are crowd-sourced, junk sources and consolidating the Controversy section into other areas of the page. I am surprised that a page that should be of great interest to a lot of Wikipedians was in such poor shape; the content gave me the impression of mostly being contributed by editors with an agenda to either promote Wikia, create backlinks to their Wikia or use Wikipedia to soapbox their personal gripes. Needs close watchlisting and steady article-improvement. CorporateM (Talk) 17:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse removal completely irrelevant to Wikia's governance. This RFC should be closed early by the requestor. The bot sent me. EllenCT (talk) 04:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse removalas irrelevant to the article. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• No clue what this RFC is about. Sorry. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - Invited here by a bot. Poorly formulated RFC. Very unlikely to resolve the issue whatever it is. No way to arrive at consensus if there is no clear proposal or question. Jojalozzo (talk) 04:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

An unquestioned statement from 2008

From the article:

Wikia [... m]aterial is allowed, as long as the added material does not duplicate Wikimedia Foundation projects. Many of the site's hosted wikis follow the style of Wikipedia, but offer detail beyond what is considered appropriate by Wikipedia's policies. For example, a minor character in a Star Wars film may have its own article on Wookieepedia, whereas the character may not be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia page.

I have added the templates because there is nothing in the cited article that backs up the limitation statement (the article is a 2007 business news article on Wikia, not some WP policy). Furthermore, the statement itself seems to me to be false. The original version of it was added in 2008 [3], and it has since been changed to use a different example (a minor character in Star Wars). However, minor characters in fiction do have their own articles on Wikipedia, and that argument is still going on with Pokemon characters,and other places. It certainly has not been resolved by the community at WP as this reads above. See WP:FICTION and WP:Fancruft for the issues. There are a great number of WP:Fiction based articles on Wikipedia, and (for this reason) a great deal of writing that covers the same topics on WP are covered on various sites hosted by Wikia. However, the idea that certain detailed fictional material is too detailed for Wikipedia and thus should be deleted and "covered" on Wikia is pernicious. It tends to intrinsically harm Wikipedia's coverage of fictional topics. For example there are episodes of the original Star Trek on Wikipedia that have gone to ruin, and now don't have a single photo. See Requiem for Methuselah, for an example. Then Google the episode name and compare with the treatment of the same episode on Memory Alpha, which makes money for Wikia. See the point? SBHarris 03:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

the example does't have to be fiction. See the wikias for cameras, or model railroading, or carpentry tools. But even in fiction, the is a level of minor below which we do not go, and there is no level of minor which they exclude. It is perfectly factual that most wikias have nothing resembling a notability criterion, and that wikipedia does. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

there should be a criticism section on wikia

wikia does have a bad reputation in the fact that they do not remove content i have been reasearching wikia and on here the comments are favorable of wikia http://webtrends.about.com/u/r/od/wikireviews/fr/wikia_review.htm also Shout wiki host the anti wikia alliance http://awa.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Anti-Wikia_Alliance

"All wikias are subject to closure or alteration if necessary. Wikia staff and helpers may contact the community about making changes to the wikia, including the site name or url, to meet our Terms of Use or to improve search visibility and ad display. While a wikia's founder may request that their project be closed, if the topic is of general public interest Wikia generally prefers to leave dormant wikias available for adoption.

"Wikias which have no content, or remain inactive, or have a large overlap with another wikia may be merged with another project, locked from editing, or closed completely. In the case of complete closure of wikias that previously had content, the database of content will be made available for download."

"You understand and agree that others may, but are not obligated to, edit, delete or remove (without notice) any content from the Service, for any reason or no reason." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnymoon96 (talk • contribs)

Wikia issue

Today, at about 9am New Zealand Time there was an incident when a Wikia Staff member account was stolen. You can check at Wikia. 115.188.198.32 (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality Flag (dated February 2015) removed by LeoRomero (Dec 2015)

Mabuhay! I tumbled into this page as I was updating my Gratitude list (Page does not exist because I don't really have one), which led me to this page I created on Wikia almost 100 wikiyears ago It's got a bigass ad on it now, but it didn't back then, when we do-gooders got into it, when yawl was just pups. We tried to use Wikia for our do-gooder work, and we did use it, for a year or two.

Then, as Wikia took off, there were even more ads, then even more ads, and even more ads. Most of my friends loathed the ads. I was a bit more understanding: This is a free service alyawl, you gonna pay for all this? Still, I let Wikia know that my kind of do-gooder will not use Wikia wth ads. We object to ads, and the runaway decadent consumerism that's consuming the world, much thanks to advertising.

So I have a Conflict of Interest.

On another hand (I have several hands), I do like ALL the people I met at Wikia (Bill, Sannse, Angela, Gil, Jimmy n em). And some do-gooder friends of mine did stay to do their do-gooding, through Wikia. I guess that balances out my Conflict:

- iLoatheAds + iHeartWikians + WikiaDoesGood = ~ 0

I'm about to remove this waaay old flag [ 9 Earth-Months = 9 Wiki-Years ] I went through both the Article and the Talk page, edit by edit, since 2.25.15 - the date the flag was raised. (I thanked you for the edits that helped me understand the problem, from all available sides - I wasn't just stalking you again) In Talk, there are suggestions to include specific criticism against Wikia. If they haven't already been added into the article, it's never too late criticize all you want. (I think everyone should be free to do pretty much anything they want in Wikipedia; just respect our core rules on content WP:CCPOL; bonus if you're WP:KIND)

I see no need for the flag. Au contraire, bonjour, if there's no WP:POV problem, then leaving the flag would itself be misleading.

Kindest; Loretta/LeoRomero (talk) 04:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Connection with Wired

Two of the images associate Wikia with Wired (magazine). What's the connection? If there isn't one, we shouldn't imply that there is. But if there is, we should spell it out. yoyo (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The only connection seems to be that Fandom shares an office building with Wired (magazine). I think that the image of this office building can be re-captioned so that the bit about Wired also being in that building would be taken out. The current caption, "Wikia and Wired Building location", may cause confusion (i.e. people may think that the companies are related). Also, on the Wired Wikipedia article, the same image of the office building is shown, but Fandom/Wikia is not mentioned (the caption is, "Wired building located in San Francisco"). Therefore, shouldn't the caption of the picture of the office building can be changed to, "Fandom building located in San Francisco"? Ajshul (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding to the Wikimedia Family

Looking at it, this would be suited better if it were a Wikimedia project. It would serve as 'A collection of Wikis' or something like that. Analyi|(talk) 21:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikimedia projects tend to value originality and free, open-source content. Too much of what's on Wikia is merely derivative, a re-hash of various copyrighted entertainment franchise characters based on a very flimsy claim to fair use or fair dealing. In copyright, fair use allows a book review to quote a paragraph of the book in order to then provide commentary or criticism of the copyrighted work... but once it gets to even 8-30% of the content being quoted from copyrighted sources, that's not fair use, that's infringement. Given Wikimedia's position on wanting everything to be copyleft (instead of copyright) and their position as a non-profit educational charity, I can't imagine them touching this with a barge pole. They did agree to host Wikivoyage, but that project has some educational value (it's teaching geography, albeit in dumbed-down tourist form) and it's untainted by "non-free" content. I can't say the same for this mess. Q788771 (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Updating the Wikia article

Hi there. My name is Greta, and I am disclosing up front that I have a COI around this article - I am currently working at Wikia. I was asked, along with my colleague Philippe (an employee of Wikia, who is also disclosing a COI related to this article) to work with the Wikipedia editor community to see if we could get the article on Wikia updated. There are several things on it that are quite outdated, and we believe that there is a strong "coatrack” effect. A number of details could potentially be cleaned up because they are no longer relevant.

We thought it might be easiest if we started with our edited version of the "ideal" article from our perspective, presented it, and then worked with anyone willing to reconcile the differences between the two. Philippe has put together our draft, and we welcome any comments or suggestions. We want to emphasize that we've made no attempt to "whitewash" anything - we haven't rewritten much, we've just trimmed and edited. Any additions are minor. We have the utmost respect for the Wikipedia process (as you all know, I'm sure, Philippe was on staff at the WMF for 6 and a half years) and want to work within the rules, and our management shares our commitment to this.

Please let us know if you have any feedback. In the meantime, what is the best way for us to proceed?

Gmartin1122 (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Since there's been no response here, I'm going to try {{Edit request}}. -Philippe (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Gmartin1122 and Philippe: I'm willing to work with you two to update this article. -- MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 03:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@MorbidEntree: Thanks so much for your offer! My name is Nikki and I work at Wikia as well. I'd love to work with you on this if you're open to it (Greta has moved on from Wikia). As Greta mentioned, we have the utmost respect for the Wikipedia process. We have some upcoming fact-based updates that I think would make sense to include in the article. I want to be respectful of your time. Does it make sense to work together once we have that information? Thanks again!

Thanks, @MorbidEntree:, but I have also moved on from Wikia. While I continue to declare a COI as they were my previous employer, I am no longer working on that article. :) -Philippe (talk) 05:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Rebranding

The Wikia platform (the part with the wikis on it) is rebranding to "Fandom powered by Wikia" on October 4th. It's for corporate branding reasons more than anything else, but judging from their blog it also has a bit to do with internal organization.

In case anyone was considering it, I don't think that's enough to warrant a rename of this article. The rebranding received an extremely negative response from users on Wikia, so I find it very unlikely that anyone (on Wikia or elsewhere) will deign to call it "Fandom." The word Fandom also has existing (and often negative) meaning among the general public, so renaming this article would be confusing to the vast majority of readers - the word will never become truly associated with Wikia. Furthermore, Wikia is not changing their URL or the names of individual wikis.

Even if you ignore all that, the corporate name is going to remain "Wikia, Inc." So essentially, almost everything is staying the same - the page shouldn't be renamed, and Wikia should still always be referred to as Wikia because doing anything else is and will always be confusing to readers. —Atvelonis (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

My two cents

I don't like the change to fandom myself. However, looking at the article it seems the article is more about the platform Wikia itself, rather than Wikia, Inc. There are several places where they are used interchangeably. Due to Wikia, Inc officially renaming the wiki platform to "Fandom powered by Wikia" I think it is fitting to call it such if the article is meant to be about the platform itself. If this is the case the non-wiki news magazine, hosted under Wikia's umbrella that is also called Fandom would likely need to be differentiated or included in the article. I am not sure about the naming policy, this is just my feedback to state that since they are officially renaming the article (if about the platform not the company) may need to reflect the change. In Christ, Superdadsuper, Wikipedia Editor; Bible Wiki Administrator & Bureaucrat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdadsuper (talk • contribs) 23:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, Fandom content in the company history should be moved to a new section with headings - considering that the rebranding is a symbolic diversification to the wiki hosting service that Wikia offers. I think the move should happen sometime from a neutral perspective, but the article needs more content to be split into "Fandom" and "Wikia". The reaction was rather mixed on the Fandom rebranding to be fair.

A suggestion for history sections:

1. ===2004–2006: Wikicities===
2. ===2007–2009: Wikia rebranding and Monaco===
3. ===2010–2014: Wikia's expansion and Oasis===
4. ===2015–present: Fandom project and rebranding===

The article's history section also needs limited objective information about the skin implementation - they weren't objectively absolute in controversy and there's no information on Oasis in the article at all. Including Discussions would be good, but more detail on products seems unfair.

 Speeditor talk  23:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a possibility. Having a more detailed history section with the headings you gave, but not renaming the actual article, would have the most positive effect on readers' understanding of the topic. —Atvelonis (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that a redirect to this page, from Fandumb Fandom Powered by Wikia or whatever, would be a good idea. Scientific Alan 2^{(What have I said?)(What have I done?)} 22:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The for-profit arm of Wikipedia

I know that in the past there was some dispute about how Wikipedia's article about Wikia characterized its relationship with Wikipedia and/or the Wikimedia Foundation. There was a lot of argument back and forth about whether Wikipedia and Wikia were more closely tied than the Wikipedia article was letting on about. It seems that the inside leadership of the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikia eventually prevailed, so that the current reader does not get any strong idea that Wikia and the Wikimedia Foundation were at one time very closely affiliated. I'm kind of astounded, then, to see this recent video -- http://www.tubechop.com/watch/8452762 -- of Jimmy Wales nodding his head in confirmation that Wikia is "the for-profit arm of Wikipedia". If the co-founder of both project cannot himself interject and say "well, not exactly", what the heck is going on here? - Truth about MVNOs (talk) 17:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

There was that, and there was an incident in (IIRC) 2012 or so in which Jimbo admitted to the BBC that Wikia was cybersquatting a few domains which directly infringed the Wikileaks brand. His excuse? Wikileaks was claiming to be "the Wikipedia of leaks" and, uh, trademark or something... so Wikia staff went ahead and registered wikileaks.com .net and .us [4] Q788771 (talk) 04:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

"For-profit"

I'm not associated with Wikia and I'm a small volunteer editor for WMF. This was my first time reading the article, and the lead section feels harsh. I get it, it's "for-profit" and it "deriving its income from advertising and sold content" and yes, it's parent is a "for-profit Delaware company." I simply don't see the need to hammer that in during the lead section. Yahoo! is a "for-profit" company "deriving its income from advertising" but its article certainly doesn't open up that way. Truthfully, and this being my first read of the article, it came across as Wikipedia editors being vindictive. Just wanted to get the conversation going about it. Drewmutt (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not inaccurate, and it's certainly not something that they're very open about. They tend to portray a lot of decisions that are obviously profit-focused as being "for ease of use of consumers", even when the consumers are vehemently complaining about them.50.194.115.156 (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

There's also the not-so-minor detail that some of the material which they're hosting (such as Memory Alpha) is under a non-commercial free licence, putting them legally on very thin ice. Q788771 (talk) 04:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Drewmutt I'll look into changing the opening wording. Thanks. Beansohgod (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done, the lead section is perfect as is. Better time would be spent expanding the lead rather than the for-profit sections of the article. Beansohgod (talk) 13:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Co domain Conguyen1993 (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

List of largest wikies

What do you think about including in this article ranking of largest wikies? Dawid2009 (talk) 07:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The plural is wikis. Qwerfjkl talk 21:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Know this is old, but Fandom isn't a wiki, it's a wiki host. 134.215.190.243 (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Piracy

Does Wikia support piracy? I often see many articles which contain obvious copyright infringement. Such as copyrighted images (obviously beyond fair use) as well as videos or ebooks. 2600:1:F15E:448C:A19E:4DD1:75AD:25C1 (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Admins on English Wikipedia has no jurisdiction over Wikia network. If you want to report copyright violations on Wikia, follow this link. And, most importantly, please note that the talk page is for discussions related to improving the article, not general discussions regarding the topic. -- ChamithN (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Know this is old, but maybe they're asking if they can add to the article that they think it supports piracy, and not just discussing Fandom? My opinion on adding that is that the people who add those images aren't Fandom, they're contributors to Fandom who are doing it because they're part of the community and want to add more useful information, so it's educational and usually the only good visual representation, so not piracy, don't add it. 134.215.190.243 (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Article name

Today, Wikia announced that they would be changing the URL of the site from wikia.com to fandom.com for all wikis. Despite this, I believe it is in the best interest of readers not to rename this article, as has been established in previous consensus decisions on here.

The site has been known as Wikia for years now, and this is what everyone refers to it as off-site. It is only really called “Fandom” by some newer users on the site itself. The overall company is still called Wikia, Inc. Even MediaWiki pages like Wikia.css will apparently be unchanged. The URL switch isn’t even actually happening until at least 2019, perhaps later.

While the URL is indeed not unimportant, I don’t think its change is actually reason enough to rename this article. —Atvelonis (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

One more thing: while the company claims to have abandoned the name "Wikia" for the past couple of years, "Fandom powered by Wikia" still shows up in search results (example). To me, this is another indication that the name "Wikia" is still very relevant. —Atvelonis (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Right now, "wikia" is only mentioned in the URL and that will be dissappearing next year. So once the URL is switched, I think this article should be renamed.NemesisAT (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Not necessarily — see WP:UCN  pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 23:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

They've started moving the URLs. Raymond1922 (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

They are obviously phasing out the name "Wikia", Fandom powered by Wikia is hte transition name. NemesisAT (talk) 05:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

How Many Wikis Had Gotten Transferred to the fandom.com Domain?

In some wikis under that domain there is a little popup message that says "Attention: In the next few weeks we will migrate several communities to fandom.com including yours. Find out more in the FANDOM news blog" or "Attention: We've migrated your community's domain to fandom.com. Find out more in the FANDOM news blog."

How many wikis have been transferred to that domain exactly? Let's start with kids stuff first.

Nickelodeon: The channel itself Loud House Fairly Oddparents Rocko's Modern Life Rugrats Danny Phantom Jimmy Neutron Victorious Big Time Rush

Disney: Shake it Up Sonny With a Chance Hannah Montana Suite Life Bizaardvark Star vs the Forces of Evil Recess Kim Possible Wizards of Waverly Place

Cartoon Network: Teen Titans Go Dexter's Lab Ben 10 Courage the Cowardly Dog MAD Chowder Regular Show Clarence

International/Anime: Code Lyoko Martin Mystery Digimon Wakfu Mega Man Knowledge Database Arthur

Live Action TV

Drama: Game of Thrones Walking Dead Grey's Anatomy 24 Prison Break Scandal Criminal Minds

Comedy: The Big Bang Theory Friends

That's all for now, 67.81.163.178 (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Possible COI/selfcite issue

In the Wikis section of the main article, Ciencia Al Poder has cited a forum post started by themself concerning controversies related to a dispute with Wikia on WikiDex, a wiki led by Ciencia Al Poder. This may be a conflict of interest or self-citation issue per WP:BIASED, WP:EXTERNALREL, and WP:SELFCITE, since Ciencia is not only citing their own post but also has a serious conflict of interest, being involved with conflicts with Wikia and generally advocating against the company (e.g. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sigue-la-fuga-de-wikis-en-fandom-wikia-jes%C3%BAs-mart%C3%ADnez-novo/) recently. In should be noted that I also have a slight conflict of interest in this topic, being an editor on Fandom/Wikia, so I'm leaving this up for discussion on whether this source and the small portions of the article also written by Ciencia are problematic from a COI/NPOV/RS perspective. Bananapedian (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Worth mentioning the hate behind the move to "fandom.com"?

As you might have noticed if you have used Wikia recently, all of their wikis have been migrated to "fandom.com", a move that many hate. Example here on the talk page for the page announcing the domain migration: https://community.wikia.com/wiki/Help_talk:Fandom_domain_migration Kevindongyt (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure some people hate this change, and, from that link, some people don't particularly care. To add this to this article, we would need to be able to explain why this is encyclopedically significant, which should be supported by reliable sources. So, do any reliable sources discuss this at all? If not, it's probably not worth mentioning. Talk pages and forums are user generated content and are not generally reliable. Examples of complaints are not particularly helpful, because we don't have any sense of how wide-spread these complaints are, nor do we know the context behind them. Grayfell (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd think the backlash against the "cancer.fandom.com" blunder is notable, if it was strong enough that Wikia ultimately backed down and went with cancer.wikia.org Q788771 (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 3 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 19:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

---

Wikia → Fandom.com – Most Fandom wikis now have fandom, not wikia, in their URL. Georgia guy (talk) 13:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - article should not be named per the URL nor the media brand "Fandom", but based on the company name, which is currently still "Wikia, Inc." -- Netoholic @ 18:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• The article is about the service, not the company, so it should have the name of the service as its title. Peter James (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• That seems like a matter of proper scoping the article, not about renaming. This article covers the history of Wikia's properties, from Wikicities to current. If it were really just about the media brand "Fandom", then where do you say is the article about the company itself? Perhaps what's called for is a split, so that one article can be named for the parent company, and other article(s) for the products/services of the company. In any case, naming anything as #####.com is poor styling - this brand is called "Fandom" not "Fandom.com" . -- Netoholic @ 19:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• That's a former name (or possibly predecessor) of the service and is in the history section. Similarly Wikipedia#History has information about Nupedia. Peter James (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Sure, but then there is also a separate parent organization article at Wikimedia Foundation. In the case of Wikia/Fandom - as long as a single article is covering both the parent company and its products/services/brands, then the article should be named preferentially per the company (ala WP:NCCORP) because products/branding changes all the time and are fleeting. -- Netoholic @ 21:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Logos change often, and brands change ownership, but brands don't usually change their names significantly. The old names are for historical context, and preceded Fandom rather than being part of a range of services from the same company. WP:NCCORP is about how the name of a company should be written when in the article title, not whether it should be there, and there are others that are correctly named after the service - should ReverbNation be moved to eMinor Incorporated? Peter James (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Fandom.com is only the domain name, so would Fandom (website) be better? Peter James (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment, wikis not fitting into their idea of FANDOM won't be moved. The existing wikia Interwiki on Meta presumably also stays as is, and the decision to kill MonoBook could still end as net suicide of Wikia Inc.: WP:NORUSH? –84.46.53.62 (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• They removed Monobook? Who made that decision? Monobook - the only way to look at pages on Wikipedia - is the skin of discerning choice, and if Wikia has gotten rid of it then who knows where they will end up. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support: disclosure - I volunteer at the site in question. Article has little and less info about the company - keep that in Wikia possibly (investment info, offices, etc)? Fandom (website) sounds good for info on content hosting service. Full network = one very big Fandom content service (fandom.com, wikia.com and wikia.org), and ScreenJunkies, and Curse Media. Everything else was spun off and died. PS: The article still convolutes "Fandom" as name of "editorial project" - not true as of FpbW rebrand. Splitting & renaming the article lets Wikipedia fix that issue easily. SPD ☎ ✎ 16:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Netoholic. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ended Service

Has Wikia stopped responding or ended its service? When I click any page, it says "502 Bad Gateway".--CuteDolphin712 (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

It is okay to me. - Alumnum (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

No, it was just a big that was fixed by Fandom's engineers The Fandom Councilor (talk) 05:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Autocorrect lol. I meant "Bug". The Fandom Councilor (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 6 August 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. No prospect of consensus to move at this time. Andrewa (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

---

Wikia → Fandom (wiki hosting service) – Although I do have the ability to move pages, I am not doing so boldly because it may be controversial. For a long time, Fandom has been called Wikia. Now, they have switched over to being called "Fandom". In addition, Wikia is declining in searches and Fandom is increasing in searches. So it makes sense to move it. Awesome Aasim 02:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Move to Fandom (website). Unless there is another website named "Fandom" that has a Wikipedia article, the proposed parenthetical disambiguation is too specific. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Seems better. Should I change the request to what you suggested? Awesome Aasim 21:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. That's not a very strong trend. "Wikia" is still searched at more than 2x the rate of "Fandom," according to the link you gave. The proposal to rename the page has been brought up multiple times and has been decided against. Fandom/Gamepedia are effectively joined at the hip via Wikia, Inc., and the article should not prioritize one platform at the expense of the other. If "Fandom" eclipses "Wikia" in searches then perhaps it would be reasonable to consider a rename, but for now "Wikia" is what far more people are searching for and is how the platform is still recognized on the internet as a whole. —Atvelonis (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose (for now). Same reason as User:Atvelonis: Wikia is still the more relevant search term. If searches for "Fandom" eclipse searches for "Wikia", that is when the name change could take place. Additionally, since searches for "Fandom" could also include searches for a "fandom" (the dictionary word), solely using Google Trends without specifying "website" could be problematic. Kevindongyt (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikia or Fandom?

Hi. I'm confused. For a time it seems that Fandom was the same as Wikia, it was sort of Wikia's new name. But why does this website still exist then: Wikia.org? And shouldn't we revert to calling Wikia Wikia again then? RhinoMind (talk) 01:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

They are not actually the same thing and haven't been since the rebranding, but to avoid confusing users, Wikia has explained it as "Wikia → Fandom." In truth, the rebranding went from WikiCities -> Wikia -> Wikia: the Home of Fandom -> Fandom Powered by Wikia -> Fandom -> FANDOM -> Fandom (again). Just note that Wikia, Inc. has continued to operate under its name "Wikia" (hence wikia.org), with Fandom (fandom.com) and Gamepedia (gamepedia.com) as child companies of Wikia, Inc. Some wikis that were formerly on Wikia (pre-rebranding), like the Cancer Wiki, are hosted on wikia.org, because it would be inappropriate to have migrated them to a domain named "Fandom." —Atvelonis (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the very idea to maintain the previous name could appropriately be likened to a potential situation where it was Facebook that changed their name. I think nobody would oppose a change of the Wikipedia article about Facebook if the change of Facebook's name were actual, considering the website did change their name as a sign of their free will, and so without being compelled to. I strongly believe Wikipedia should aim to reflect things the way they are and in accordance to the reality, with no regard to one's sentiments or one's personal feelings about the change. I've enclosed everything I wanted to say. Mustafar29 (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikia, Inc. recently changed its legal name to Fandom, Inc. (according to statement placed here and global footer on Gamepedia wikis) what sound like a very good reason for moving this page to Fandom. Rail01 (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey! Add this!

I don't have the time to edit right now but can someone note that all the wikia's moved from the .wikia.com domain to the .fandom.com domain? Thanks! (also if this is already in the article i'm a goofy goober) Dibbydib ^💬/_✏ 01:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 5 November 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved; there is consensus that "Fandom" is a better title and the disambiguator "(website)" can be replaced later if wished.(non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

---

Wikia → Fandom (website) – As of August 2019 the legal name of Wikia Inc. changed to Fandom Inc. Basically everything is run under the name Fandom by now and the wikis moved to fandom.com (except for the wikis that don't really work as a "Fandom" which moved to wikia.org). Because of that it would be better to move the article to Fandom, as Wikia is no longer the correct name. MarkusRost (talk) 23:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - the (website) disambiguator is awful. I could get behind a natural disambig like Fandom, Inc. -- Netoholic @ 05:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support – There is no indication for the users/readers of Fandom that it was once known as "Wikia", even before the official name change it was fairly hidden. Despite it being the opposite now for the Wikia.org sites (which only get a small "© Fandom, Inc" at the bottom), it appears Fandom is much larger and much more recognizable (and is now even the official name). The (website) disambiguator seems fine. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support - I don’t see wikia in the name in any wiki on FANDOM. The website disambiguator is also fine. - Mcb1209 (talk) 04:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Oof.. another parenthetical disambiguation. Not a fan, but nothing that can be done about that now. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

If UCP was chosen by users

i would go:

• Ultra-Mega-Hyper-Super-Duper-Strong Oppose.

Botuczy (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2020

Citation 81 is obsolete; the fandom page has been deleted. I suggest to replace it with `` ShroomDispencer (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

N Deleted Not done per WP:KDL. However, the whole thing is based way too much on primary sources... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Domain and skin assimilation section

For future reference, this subsection of Controversies was removed in the next edit. It is a notable topic of its controversies and shouldn't be omitted completely. —Vipz (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2020

There are two SEAOFBLUEs in the article lead section:

...a [[for-profit]] [[Delaware General Corporation Law|Delaware company]] founded in... — "...a for-profit Delaware company founded in..."

Fandom uses the open-source [[wiki software]] [[MediaWiki]], the same one used by [[Wikipedia]]. — "Fandom uses the open-source wiki software MediaWiki, the same one used, the same one used by Wikipedia."

I think these should be re-worded in a way to avoid a sea of blue, such as:

...a [[Delaware General Corporation Law|Delaware company]] operated [[for-profit]], founded in... — "...a Delaware company operated for-profit, founded in..."

Fandom uses [[MediaWiki]], the open-source [[wiki software]] used by [[Wikipedia]]. — "Fandom uses MediaWiki, the open-source wiki software used by Wikipedia."

If there are better ways to reword these sections to avoid a Sea of Blue, by all means use them instead, but these are just some examples of possible replacements for them.

79.97.111.137 (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done, except for the first one, I simply unlinked "for-profit" as a standard term. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

umm

sometimes the page breaks Yesiminterestimg (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2020

"On November 4, 2020, Fandom announced that it will migrate all Gamepedia wikis to a fandom.com domain."

to

"On November 4, 2020, Fandom announced that it will migrate several Gamepedia wikis to a fandom.com domain. Until sometime in early 2021"

--we will be starting to migrate all Gamepedia wikis to a Fandom.com domain in early 2021.

Fandom

As it said, some Fandom wikis will get archived, and some will move when it is ready. 125.167.116.89 (talk) 00:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The current version of that sentence is not wrong. We can add the date when the migration is done. —Dexxor (talk) 14:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)