Talk:Fandom (website)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Create one

How can wikias like Simpsons Wiki and Muppet Wiki be created.67.175.138.202 00:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

By spending a lot of time and hard work at it. :-)

You can request a wikia site to cover a topic that is not already covered. Be aware that there are already hundreds of sites out there, and there may well be one that is on your topic or which would apply. You make use of the links provided on that page first.

As for building a wiki, there are many wiki-building tutorials out there. Here is mine, as presented at Wikimania (full text). I also strongly recommend the contents of Meatball Wiki - I don't always agree with them, but a lot of thought and worthwhile discussion is present there. GreenReaper 03:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Source

[1] is an alternative to the mercurynews.com link which is now dead. It's the same story (which you can tell from the google cache if you check soon). Angela. 04:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

TechCrunch article: nofollow

For your information: http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/

Edward 13:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought their argument there was a little weak. Wikia is a large host of successful wikis, so it's bound to have lots of interwiki links. Such links are checked by community members to ensure that they're informative sites and not spam. As a community leader, I requested an interwiki link myself, not on behalf of Wikia. It also prompted this which I found somewhat lacking in class (and accuracy). GreenReaper 19:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The author of the latter has posted a partial retraction and apology. GreenReaper 21:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Broken link

The link to "one piece encyclopedia" at active wikia sites seems to be broken, though it does exist at [2]. I don't know how to fix the link myself because it uses some special wikialink template. S Sepp 13:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Reference broken

Reference #4 is broken (goes to a 404 page).
Imaginationac (Talk | Edits | Email) 16:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Mistakes

1. Traffic - The article currently says "The largest source of Wikia traffic is its hosting of Wookieepedia". This isn't true. WoWWiki gets far more traffic than the Star Wars wiki.
2. Pronunication - Wi-KEY-ah isn't proper IPA, doesn't sound right, and also there's no source for this.
3. Weird heading - I've no idea what Topics, "wiki"es is supposed to be. Wikies isn't the plural of wiki.

Angela. 16:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Responding to a frustrated comment on WP:ANI. Fixed one, left one, one is well cited.

1. Traffic - as you will note, that is cited with a link to Alexa, which, when I looked, quoth:

   Where people go on Wikia.com: What's This?

   • starwars.wikia.com - 14%
   • yugioh.wikia.com - 11%
   • inciclopedia.wikia.com - 8%
   • dofus.wikia.com - 8%
   • nonsensopedia.wikia.com - 6%
   • images.wikia.com - 4%

   Unless I'm wrong, that does mean Wookiepedia is #1.

2. Pronunciation - left with a citation needed notice. I notice http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:About_Wikia#Pronunciation has been asking about the correct pronunciation of this word on the Wikia site since March 31 and hasn't gotten an answer, so I wouldn't throw stones. I can't read IPA very well, but one of the two proposals asked about there does seem to be the one we have.
3. Weird heading - fixed.

Sorry for taking so long, but I don't watch this article. If this question had been on one I do watch, I would have responded faster. My general advice on this WP:COI stuff to article subjects is to recommend that the people involved publish facts they want to put into their article up on their website. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, this then becomes a reliable source for information about themselves, and we can, and probably will, use it in the article. I feel kind of strange telling the legendary User:Angela about this, but what the hey. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

PS. I then follow up with a note that if they want relatively rapid action on an article, they can always talk to me about it. I've got a mop, I check in every few days, that's my job. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding WoWWiki, that site is on a separate domain, wowwiki.com, which appears nearly (variable 50% to 80%) as popular as the entirety of *.wikia.com put together. GreenReaper 10:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears that way, but it's not true. Alexa is skewed towards English sites. WoWWiki.com is only English whereas wikia.com is in more than 70 languages. Angela. 14:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Alexa can't account for sites on different domains. Starwars being the most visited on wikia.com does not make it the most visited Wikia site in the same way commons and meta are not Wikimedia's most visited projects (alexa). Since no one who works for Wikia pronounces it in the same way, there is no official pronunciation. It seems as though whoever added this is trying to enforce their own view of how it's pronounced. Adding a {{fact}} tag doesn't help - it's simply untrue and should be removed. Angela. 13:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comment about the pronunciation is a fine source. I'd appreciate a statement somewhere (on wikia) that Wowwiki was the #1, though, but I'll do the best I can. We aim to please; no payment beyond barnstars. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Logo

Anyone who knows then meaning of the logo (old & new), when it has changed, etc, to write an article about it? The old logo is here:Image:Wikia.png

Thank you!--Edmund the King of the Woods! 01:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for a separate article (which you've already attempted Logo of Wikia). Just add any relevant info (properly cited, of course) here. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Put in this article only if the information for the logo is too little. I want to preserve the old logo because it was once deleted, as after Wikia changed their logo, there was no more links her to the logo. --Edmund the King of the Woods! 01:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "too little", etc. But its not unheard of to have old logos for companies displayed in their article: see Apple Inc. or IBM. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I mean, we don't need separated article only if there is really too little to write about the logos. If it results in a long history, then we need another article. --Edmund the King of the Woods! 01:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikia:Logo has details of the past logos. Angela. 13:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Resources

Wikia does not share any resources with Wikimedia. Please remove that false accusation. The claims that there are close ties in terms of personnel is also misleading since no one is paid to work for both Wikia and Wikimedia. Angela. 22:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the resources area needs substantiation. I know there was some loaning mentioned in the form 990 but apart from that . . . as for the personnel, there's a difference between being paid and having close ties. Most important members of Wikipedia are not paid, and some of them play an important part in Wikimedia Foundation activities as well. The statements made in the article make explicit the key players in both areas which are being talked about. (On a somewhat-related note, I seem to remember Wikia seemed quite proud that several Wikipedia administrators were founding wikis on Wikia a few months ago.) GreenReaper 23:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

GuildWiki

The section on the GuildWiki purchase cites a talk page on a wiki. There are no reliable published sources that document this purchase. Any claims that this is a "controversial" purchase is original thought, more precisely, a synthesis of original material intended to promote a POV, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. As this article has been skirting on 3RR violation territory for a while now, I think it is better to discuss adding this section to the article here FIRST. Any admins reading this, please intervene. Eric Sandholm 23:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It is funny that you would mention discussing it here first AFTER reverting twice without discussion. I see your dash for the moral high ground, but it would be more believable if you discussed first, instead of reverting.

The talk page cited includes postings by Jimmy Wales, Gil Penchina, Angela Beesley, all three "key people" mentioned on this page. Claiming that no purchase happened is absurd (btw, take a look at wikia's homepage http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Big_wikis ), unless you want to argue that all three of them are fake or lied. Since when are statements by a firm about that firm not reliable sources regarding that firm? The word "controversial" is not present in the rewritten section you reverted, please read the section carefully before deleting content. --Xeeron 10:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not "moral high ground", but policy: WP:V. A wiki is not a reliable source and cannot be cited. Lacking citations, any controversial material is subject to removal. I don't care who commented on that talk page or what Wikia themselves say. Additionally, giving this matter undue prominence on Wikia'a page is a biased treatment. Wikia has bought and hosts several CC-NC wikis. Are you now going to list all of them here? What about the FFXIclopedia and WoWwiki sales? Does anyone besides one or two bruised egos actually care about this inside baseball stuff? In other words, how can we know if this is that notable? The primary test of notability is whether it has been noted in the press, but these sales haven't. GuildWiki itself isn't considered even worthy of inclusion here (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GameWikis and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GuildWiki). The only outside mention this sale has gotten is an Ask Slashdot story (also not reliable). If all these wiki purchases can be treated neutrally, then I have no objection. However, per WP:COI, because you (and I) are or were GuildWikians, we therefore cannot write about these sales in a neutral manner. Eric Sandholm 13:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

(Falsely) claiming the moral high ground means telling others not to revert without discussion after being the only one who reverted twice without discussion.

Wikia's page is a perfect primary source for information about wikia. In fact, it is used in this article, check sources number 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 14 and 20.

PS: Speak for yourself when saying you can not write about these sales in a neutral manner. Writing neutrally even about an issue one cares about is perfectly possible. Journalism would not be possible without it (and even non-journalists can do it). I'd also like you to point out where exactly the section was not neutral:

"Wikia's purchase of the gw.gamewikis.org domain, hosting a popular Guild Wars wiki, in September 2007 created a long discussion among users. Despite being hosted under the non-commercial Creative Commons license and operated as a not-for-profit venture , the owner of the domain sold the site to Wikia, which is private company." --Xeeron 15:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

While certain primary sources are usable, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and does not aim to provide a significant level of journalism. Instead, it distills information from the work of journalists. WikiNews, on the other hand, can make extensive use of primary sources, and you could always try writing a story there. Alternatively, you could seek to bring it to the attention of a reputable third-party news organization. They can then make the decision on whether or not it is actually news. I wrote about it myself, but while I have experience in the area, I doubt that I would be considered a reliable secondary source, just a primary one on my own opinons. :-) GreenReaper 16:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Question: Does this mean that all content backed by primary sources should be deleted from the article? --Xeeron 19:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No, because I didn't say that. In fact, the first thing I did say was that certain primary sources are usable. But do quotations from a wiki talk page count as official published statements? I honestly do not know. I do know that it would be far better if we had a secondary source to quote, in particular because they would have a perspective on whether or not it was a sufficiently notable matter to have any mention of it at all. Whether a matter is notably controversial is a judgment call that is best made by third-parties unconnected with the matter, which is why there is a strong preference for reliable published secondary sources. In particular, if we are using primary sources, we must "only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge; and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." GreenReaper 20:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Xeeron, I don't care to play your silly "morality" game. There is nothing moral or immoral about editing Wikipedia. Argue on the basis of policies please. Without any reliable published sources, that paragraph you wrote is biased. Its mere presence in the article is a bias. Eric Sandholm 22:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

(RI) Ok fine. Because there are many other primary sources (including a wiki talk page) used in this article, and if you were to argue that this primary source should be removed, I would remove them as well. So lets dismiss Erik's arguement based on it being a primary source and come to the arguements left: POV and not notable enough. I feel that the section quoted above does not have any POV problems. If you feel differently, please point out where.

For the last arguement, notability. Wikia is a company based on making profit from hosting wiki communities. If something happens that prevents them from making profit (guildwiki licence issues) or hosting communities (let down users stopping to contribute), that is a big deal for wikia. Also, this is not the only wiki that wikia bought, several of its biggest wikis are bought (granted, this needs to be worked into the section), making the acquisition of wikis a big part of their business strategy. --Xeeron 21:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's the "if" that concerns me here. "If this, then that" is an interpretive claim. You cannot just dismiss the fact that it is a primary source for such claims. You need a secondary source to make that interpretation first, and then you can reference it, because then we're saying "X said Y, because Z" rather than "we say Y, because Z". There is also a big implication there with the phrase starting "Despite...". It appears to be implying that the sale was a violation of the CC-BY-NC license, which is a determination we are not qualified to make. It also states that the original site was a non-profit venture, although there is no actual evidence given to support this, just the license of the wiki.

It would probably be fine to say that Wikia purchased specific wikis from their founders - or, being more specific, paid them for the domain name, trademark rights, and possibly to stop hosting the wiki themselves - as long as you can back those claims up with straight evidence rather than deduction. I would say that this is a reasonable example, except that it does not state explicitly that money was paid, just that there was a transfer of ownership. Interestingly, the fact that a transfer occurred without consulting other members of the community beforehand was hotly debated even after Wikia had been hosting the site for a year or so. It is surprising that a similar reaction was not foreseen for GuildWikis. GreenReaper 22:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand you.

This link you provided is, from all I can gather, a wiki page where the sale of unencyclopedia to wikia is is announced. You say this is a reasonable example. This is a wiki page where the sale of guildwiki is announced, yet you and Erik Sandholm say it can not be used. Where is the difference?

Also, this is a wiki talk page used as a source in this article. Yet this is a wiki talk page that Erik Sandholm removed as a source from this article. Again, where is the difference? --Xeeron 13:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain more clearly: I - personally - have no problem with you taking plain statements on a talk page by a particular user when there is no reasonable doubt about the identity of that person, and as long as that fact is on a topic where they are clearly in a position to speak (such as their own opinion, or that of the company when acting as a spokesperson). As the GuildWiki is now under Wikia control it is reasonable to say that statements made by users that are the same as those of well-known Wikia personalities are statements from them. But going from the fact that they and others are making statements to saying that there is a notable controversy is inappropriate - even if, in your expert opinion, it is right - since that is a level of judgment that should really be made by a third party. That is why I said I would be more comfortable including it at all if a secondary source had highlighted it as a notable matter. Right now, you're also not picking out a particular statement of fact by a recognized person, you're saying "hey, here's controversy" - and that's your interpretation.

Even stating that it is a long discussion about a popular wiki is debatable because "long" is relative, as is "popular." Is it long compared to other wiki discussions? Is it popular compared to other wikis, or to other Guild Wars wikis? Who is deciding either of those? The reader is certainly unlikely to know how true these statements are. I don't even know how popular GuildWiki was. Is there an official wiki? Is it more popular? Etc. GreenReaper 02:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "long" and "popular" are relative, though I thought them to be clear in this instance (long compared to other wiki discussions, popular compared to other game wikis). If you feel they are to subjective, cut them out, the section does not depend on those two words. I never used the word controversy, so the first part of your post does not really apply. --Xeeron 11:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It was used as the title of the section by a previous anonymous editor. My apologies if this was not you. GreenReaper 13:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I was not that anon editor. All my wikipedia edits are done from this account. --Xeeron 16:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

GuildWiki was never as popular as WoWWiki, if we go by Alexa ranks. It was twice deemed to fail WP:WEB at AfD here (see above for links), and it is much less popular now than it was during the AfDs. Yes, here is an official wiki supported by the game publisher, started about a year and half after GuildWiki. Most of the former GuildWiki community has migrated to the official wiki, even though it is not quite as complete as GuildWiki. Xeeron himself is a sysop and a bureaucrat on the official wiki. The only credible accolades GuildWiki has gotten is a "specialty" recognition by the publishers of the game (not really an independent entity; they even once considered buying GuildWiki), and Wikia themselves. If we take your own WikiFur as the threshold of notability for wikis, then GuildWiki isn't even in the same league. Eric Sandholm 16:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. It's interesting to compare and contrast GuildWiki stats with Guild Wars Wiki stats, although they don't necessarily give a good view of current popularity - perhaps Quantcast's view of gw.gamewikis.org and wiki.guildwars.com would be useful. Neither of them are truly huge sites. Of course, it's possible to create a relatively large wiki without it getting any significant coverage that enables us to write anything about a specific topic, which is the problem here. GreenReaper 16:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You are not free to "dismiss" any argument based on your vague interpretations of policies. Please actually read WP:V and WP:RS. Eric Sandholm 22:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, User:Xeeron's user page (this version, specifically) makes it clear that he has an axe to grind. I think a reading of WP:POINT is also in order. Eric Sandholm 10:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Eric Sandholm, please back away from your threatening tone. I have never disrupted Wikipedia to make a point, I have never been even close to violate 3RR. Why do you keep implying I did? You should read WP:AGF. --Xeeron 13:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you hope to achieve on Wikipedia? Because I doubt your neutrality (and mine, FWIW, but I never added any unsupported text to the article), please declare your proposed edits here and let a disinterested third party make them. We (former) GuildWikians are too close to the matter to be able to gauge its significance. On the substance of your proposed edit, it is trying to document a controversy, regardless of whether the section reads "controversy" or not. WP:CONTROVERSY is a handy manual for such sections. All facts must be attributed to reliable sources. All assertions too. For example, your framework "despite ... being NC and operated as a non-profit, it was sold" (paraphrase) contains at least two unsupported assertions: that GameWikis was operated as a non-profit, and that the NC content was sold. These are not documented anywhere, not even on the GuildWiki page. (Note the significant distinction between selling a domain name, trademarks, etc., and selling the NC content itself.) On your final point, I don't recall accusing you of a 3RR violation, even by implication. AGF doesn't mean that I have to pretend that conflicts of interest don't exist. Note, I visited your user page long after I made my first comment here. To be blunt, I don't see how you can drop the AGF bomb given that you were the first to question my good faith (the "moral high ground" nonsense). Eric Sandholm 14:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• What I hope to achieve on Wikipedia: To establish a complete and encompassing encyclopedia.
• I am not trying to document a controversy. If you read the section you deleted, you will find that the word controversy is not used there. Neither is there any arguement about whether a sale happened or not on the source linked, nor any arguement whether guildwiki operated as non commercial, nor any arguement whether wikia operates commercially. You are constructing a controversy were none is.
• Your paraphrase of my edit is wrong, therefore your following arguement is wrong as well. Especially, it read "the owner of the domain sold the site to Wikia". Notice how it talks about the domain, not the NC content.
• To quote yourself: "this article has been skirting on 3RR violation territory for a while now". Who was this directed at if not me?
• "you can drop the AGF bomb". This is the kind of language I dislike in your edits. Instead of arguing neutrally, you use language that paints your opponent in the discussion (me) in a very bad light. You could just as well have said "I don't think you can claim AGF here". Your style of argumentation draws this whole discussion onto a personal level, when we would be better off restricting the discussion to the matter at hand. --Xeeron 12:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Your own self-quote above falsifies your claim that my paraphrase was "wrong". Read the words next to the ones you highlighted in bold. Sold the site. Any standard interpretation of "site" would include all of its content. About whether this is a controversy or not, of course it is a controversy. Avoiding the word "controversy" doesn't magically make it mundane. I notice that you simply glossed over the non-profit bit. Where was GameWikis incorporated as a non-profit? Incorporation records are public and reliable, but I haven't been able to find them. In fact, most kinds of non-profit organizations are required to maintain an open account of their finances, which Gravewit notably hadn't done for a long time. It's not going too far out on a limb to suggest that GameWikis never was a non-profit, no matter what their contributors (foolishly) thought. About your last two bullet points, I am going to simply ignore all complaints from you about "style" of discussion; this is obviously an instance where Ensign's GWG signature applies. If you want to publicize Gravewit/Wikia's activities, get some mainstream media attention on it and cite that here; until then, it has no business on Wikipedia. Eric Sandholm 16:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

When I wrote "the owner of the domain sold the site to Wikia", it should be pretty clear that what is sold is the domain. If that was not clear to you, you could have edited it. I dont know why we should be discussing these details when it is pretty clear that you don't want that section there, regardless of the wording. PS: I have no intention of digging up someone's signature on GWG, if you want to make a point, make it here. --Xeeron 16:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to add that I came here to see what content had been added regarding GuildWiki here, and I agree it should not have been removed. It is an important fact about the way this company operates that people should be able to discover via this page. 80.76.127.50 14:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a tabloid press. Get some mainstream media outlet to care first, then cite it here with a summary. Eric Sandholm 23:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Bump

This discussion seems to have died out without comming to any consensus. As of the last revert, the article is still not clearly mentioning that wikia not only consists of wikis that were founded on wikia.com, but also of wikis that were incorporated into wikia later, at times via the payment of money/stock to the owner of the domain. This is an important fact that should be mentioned in the article. I propose adding this at the end of the Topics and wikis subsection:

Domain names that are not included in the wikia.com figure stem from wikis that were founded separately from wikia and incorporated into wikia later. In some cases, this incorporation involved wikia paying money and/or stock to the previous owner of the domain name used for these wikis. The licence of wikis operating under the creative common non-commercial attribution forbids commercial use, however wikia argues that money/stocks were only paid for the domain name, not the content of the wikis. --Xeeron 12:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with everything starting from "The licence". That is your novel interpretation of the NC clause that is not supported by the license text. The bias in the parenthetical comment ("however wikia ... of the wikis") at the end is completely unacceptable. The only way such a line can be allowed in Wikipedia is if it is a direct quote from a mainstream media publication. The assertion "In some cases ... for these wikis" is fine with the proviso that it can be reliably sourced to publicly verifiable discussions Wikia have had when acquiring notable CC-NC wikis such as Memory Alpha, Uncyclopedia, etc. Eric Sandholm 23:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I added in the first part of the text. The source used is the previous owner of the guildwiki domain stating he was paid money and stocks. Feel free to add sources for Memory Alpha or Uncyclopedia.

I did not add the sentence starting at "the licence". However when following your link to Memory Alpha, I found out that I can't claim that my interpretation that the creative commons non-commercial licence forbids commercial use is "novel". Someone editing the Memory Alpha article had that idea as early as 2 years ago and since then, hundreds of edits have gone by without that idea being retracted. --Xeeron 09:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't true and highlights the dangers of original research on Wikipedia. Not all non-wikia.com domains started outside of Wikia. Obviously we've bought many domains of our own that weren't owned previously. I think you'll find only stock options are given, not stock. You can't rely on what someone said on a wiki page as a reference for this. Angela. 05:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You are correct about the domains, it should not have been saying that all domains started out that way, changed to some. I also changed stock to stock option, but note that it was not just "someone" who said so, but the previous owner of the gamewikis domain, explaining his contract with wikia.

Out of interest, which are the wikis that are not part of the wikia domain, but started as wikia wikis? --Xeeron 16:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)