Talk:Fandom (website)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Wikia)

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

@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)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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 -- -- 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)Reply[reply]

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 .net and .us [1] Q788771 (talk) 04:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

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. (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@Drewmutt I'll look into changing the opening wording. Thanks. Beansohgod (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Co domain Conguyen1993 (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

The plural is wikis. Qwerfjkl talk 21:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Know this is old, but Fandom isn't a wiki, it's a wiki host. (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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. (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article name[edit]

Today, Wikia announced that they would be changing the URL of the site from to 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Not necessarily — see WP:UCN  pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 23:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They've started moving the URLs. Raymond1922 (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are obviously phasing out the name "Wikia", Fandom powered by Wikia is hte transition name. NemesisAT (talk) 05:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How Many Wikis Had Gotten Transferred to the 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 including yours. Find out more in the FANDOM news blog" or "Attention: We've migrated your community's domain to 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, (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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. 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)Reply[reply]

Worth mentioning the hate behind the move to ""?[edit]

As you might have noticed if you have used Wikia recently, all of their wikis have been migrated to "", a move that many hate. Example here on the talk page for the page announcing the domain migration: Kevindongyt (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
I'd think the backlash against the "" blunder is notable, if it was strong enough that Wikia ultimately backed down and went with Q788771 (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply] – 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)Reply[reply]

  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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 is poor styling - this brand is called "Fandom" not "" . -- Netoholic @ 19:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • is only the domain name, so would Fandom (website) be better? Peter James (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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? – (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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 (, and, 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)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per Netoholic. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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: And shouldn't we revert to calling Wikia Wikia again then? RhinoMind (talk) 01:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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, with Fandom ( and Gamepedia ( as child companies of Wikia, Inc. Some wikis that were formerly on Wikia (pre-rebranding), like the Cancer Wiki, are hosted on, because it would be inappropriate to have migrated them to a domain named "Fandom." —Atvelonis (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Hey! Add this![edit]

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

Requested move 5 November 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: 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)Reply[reply]

WikiaFandom (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 (except for the wikis that don't really work as a "Fandom" which moved to 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)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose - the (website) disambiguator is awful. I could get behind a natural disambig like Fandom, Inc. -- Netoholic @ 05:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • Support per nom.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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. –MJLTalk 05:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If UCP was chosen by users[edit]

i would go:

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

Botuczy (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2020[edit]

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

☒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)Reply[reply]

Domain and skin assimilation section[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2020[edit]

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. (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 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)Reply[reply]


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

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2020[edit]

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


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

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


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

 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)Reply[reply]

"Brickipedia" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Brickipedia. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 15#Brickipedia until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Growth > Community[edit]

It was said 2 weeks ago that growth changed to the community so Brandon Rhea is actually VP of Community now not VP of Growth. Please change it.Justin Oh (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fandom/wikia consistency - also image in infobox[edit]

I get that fandom and wikia are the samething, but why are they used interchangeably in this article? Should we replace most references to wikia with fandom instead? Also, why is the image for wikia still up on the infobox? I think I might edit it DreamlessGlare (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Potential spot for controversy: Admins refusing to let owners close wikias & ownership confusion.[edit]

With the merging of Gamepedia, Fandom, Wikia, and other events having occurred, the practices of Fandom Inc have grown a lot more user hostile.

For example, the persistence and insistent refusal to close and delete Wikias. For example, the FrackinUniverse Wiki, (now hosted on Miraheze) was one such Wiki that Fandom refused to close.

They even sent a liaison by the handle of Moviesign, who basically barged their way on the Discord of the project, thoroughly acted as a middle manager or pointy haired boss, doing nothing to aid the actual project staff while annoying them in a "Stan the Salesman" sort of way; loudly making useless suggestions. Eventually, due to the annoyance they; and the entire Fandom project was provided, Moviesign was removed from the Discord and a notice put onto the Wikia once a new host had been found. It has since then been rolled back by Moviesign, in spite of having no actual authorization over the project. 2601:540:8200:25F3:C1C7:D4C9:5BD9:B58B (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like how the above post has no signature, but we're supposed to "trust them". The great irony is that many, many users on Fandom complain about their wikis being closed. People don't seem to understand that once they create a wiki on Fandom... they don't own it, Fandom does. -- (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ownership Of Wikias/Fandom[edit]

A similar case of dispute merges over the Zelda Wiki, which suffered from the blight of the Fandom/Gamepedia merger; with the ownership (as noted) being disputed. 2601:540:8200:25F3:C1C7:D4C9:5BD9:B58B (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If a wiki exists on Fandom (or Gamepedia which was sold to Wikia/Fandom), Fandom owns it. Simple. Unless someone can produce a contract stating otherwise, there really isn't a dispute. -- (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An extra dot[edit]

backed by Private equity firm TPG Capital, acquired Fandom*..*[5] Miller was named Co-chairman

(in the "2018–present: New acquisitions and inclusivity section")....just pointing out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:9600:52C0:6594:3843:DA62:C33E (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 DoneDexxor (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Criticism for monopolistic practices and exploitation of labor[edit]

This paper based on a survey conducted in 2020 criticizes Wikia/Fandom for monopolistic practices and exploiting the labor of its users. I am unsure how to put this information in the article, but I feel it is important. ~Opal of Arctic Circle System (talk) 10:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leave it out, that's utter bollocks. Equating voluntary participation in ad-supported online forums with labour exploitation is as absurd as it gets. — kashmīrī TALK 15:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whitewashing of "Domain and skin assimilation" section[edit]

This edit by User:RandomCanadian (which doesn't seem to have been discussed anywhere) removed the entire section of controversy about domain name and skin assimilation. I think this is inappropriate. I suggest it be restored and expanded with more current secondary sources, including: (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As angry as I am with the bloated direction "Fandom" is taking, these sources really do not support the removed text. These grievances about stealing skin code will need to be addressed by some sort of internet historian making a secondary source, but well I just don’t expect any "reliable" publisher to want to dig that deep for legal trouble. If only there’a some other sort of wiki where we could keep this stuff up...

On the other hand, these sources DO work well with the existing section on advertisement complaints. They provide new information about the wiki-exodus-SEO problem, while elaborating on how much worse ads have gotten. Artoria2e5 🌉 01:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2022[edit]

The note [c] in the Fandom(website) wiki refers to asari as a Japanese word, and I don’t agree. There is a verb asaru which means fishing or rummaging, and asari- is the stem of various verbs with this meaning. Entry: The name was derived from the Hawaiian word for "quick" and asari, Japanese for "rummaging search“. Suggested change: “ The name was derived from the Hawaiian word for "quick" and asari, stem of the Japanese verb asaru, "to rummage”. The information given appears to reference the following: So if you prefer to just add a citation, use that. Reelmquist (talk) 05:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 DoneDexxor (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Office address[edit]

Hi there. I'm posting this on the talk page rather than editing because a) it's semi-protected and I can't but more importantly b) I work at Fandom so I am declaring a conflict of interest. I just wanted to point out that the SF office address is over two years out of date (we left 360 Third Street in the fall of 2018). Our current office address is 130 Sutter Street, the Hallidie Building, which is listed in our privacy policy. - BrandonRhea (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 22:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BrandonRhea: FYI, I didn't change the category as it looks like you linked the same one twice? Additionally, this page should probably be edited to move it to use Fandom language, and with the new location. I don't have the permissions to edit it, though 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 22:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @EpicPupper! You're right, I did link the same category twice. I meant to say it should change from Category:South of Market, San Francisco (where the old office was) to Category:Financial District, San Francisco (where the current ons is). And thanks for that link to the Wikia HQ page on the Connect Wiki, that's an old page for an event from several years ago so I'll likely just remove that page. - BrandonRhea (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fandom Worlds VR wiped from history.[edit]

Does noone remember the that existed in the year 2000? They had a VR experience called Fandom Worlds that was substantial and one of the only high quality free forms of Active Worlds back then. I'm just surprised to come here and see nothing about it. It had 4 worlds(servers) that all had different themes. Anyway, the userbase was pretty large and it's a shame this was lost to time. (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2023[edit]

Add "literature" to part of lead giving examples of entertainment topics covered by Fandom ("i.e. literature, video games, TV series, movies, entertainers, etc."). (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The only potential support I can see in the article for adding literature to the opening section is a single unsourced reference to "books" in the "Services and Features" section. Can you point to a reliable source that describes Fandom as including content about books/book series/literature? --Pinchme123 (talk) 03:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2023[edit]

I would like to add to the infobox that redirects to FANDOM. Wikicities is also the older name for FANDOM before they changed it to Wikia. StealthTrooper36 (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

Minecraft Wiki departure section[edit]

I will preface this by saying I am a Minecraft Wiki editor pushing its fork. There are many examples of forks, why is this in-progress fork the only one to be documented on this page? Instead of having an entire section about a random fork, I think a sentence along the lines of "This incident is cited as the reason that many wikis, including the Minecraft Wiki, forked from Fandom" would work in the above grimace incident section. We were serious about forking before that incident ever happened, though we publicly state it as one of the reasons so the statement would be correct. Or if you want a section on forking, have it describe multiple forks. I'd edit this page but it is semi-protected. Harristic (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia follows and reports on what is in reliable, secondary sources (in this case PC Gamer, PCGamesN, etc.). Since the Minecraft wiki got coverage in multiple secondary sources it gets a prominent place in the Wikipedia article. If there are more sources that go into detail on other forks, let us know - but we can't describe other forks here without good sourcing. MrOllie (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you cannot source the actual discussions on the wikis (for example, the discussion pages about the fork on the Minecraft Wiki) or tweets from the wiki announcing the forks (for example, Zelda Wiki's tweet that fully details their fork and why they're forking), and instead you must source clickbait headline news articles that source those previous things anyway? How weird. But even so, there's been secondary sources written about the Zelda Wiki and Terraria Wiki forks that you can find with a simple Google search. Harristic (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Correct, we do not use forums, wikis, social media, or other forms of self published content. MrOllie (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strange. But anyway, since these other forks have secondary sources, shouldn't there be a more general forking section that details multiple forks and why they happen? Harristic (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't know without reviewing the sources. I know you can't edit the article, but if you'd like to propose a specific section with sourcing on the talk page I'm sure someone will help you out with moving it to the article if it meets policy. MrOllie (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some sources about other wikis forking Delibirda (talk) 12:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]