Talk:Wikia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Connection with Wired[edit]

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)

Adding to the Wikimedia Family[edit]

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[edit]

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 There are several things on it that are quite outdated, and we believe that there is a strong "coatrack” effect.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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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 [1] Q788771 (talk) 04:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

"For-profit"[edit]

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)

List of largest wikies[edit]

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

Piracy[edit]

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)

Article name[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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"?[edit]

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[edit]

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)


WikiaFandom.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[edit]

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[edit]

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)



WikiaFandom (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?[edit]

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)