Fallout Wiki
Fallout Wiki
Forums: Index > Wiki proposals and applications > Video Re-Negotiation thread

It is clear from the community vote on the negotiated settlement with Wikia/Fandom that the community is not satisfied with what is offered.

As such, I would like to now ask the community where our red line is, and if the community is happy for me to continue in this role.

As we seem to be getting a great and speedy response, I only anticipate this being open for 72 hours. If no single option has overwhelming support on its own, where an option includes another option votes will be read as being inclusive in there.

There is no section that discusses Autoplay. As much as this bothers me too, realistically I don't think this is a battle we'd stand a chance of winning. Content related outcomes only require Wikia/Fandom not to do something (ie - to not post video), changing the autoplay rules would require them to make a technical change that would apply on all wikis. Agent c (talk) 16:03, September 10, 2017 (UTC)

Known Videos

Question 1 - where is our red line

Poll finished on 4:03 pm September 13, 2017 (UTC).
Icon vote.png
  • A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.
  • You can vote by placing the following line in the appropriate section of the option you support:
    • # {{yes}} ~~~
    • # {{no}} ~~~
  • Please do not edit other user's votes.

No Compromise - The video must be removed

  1. Yes NomadMC (talk) 16:11, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  2. Yes Yodamort (talk) 16:05, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  3. Yes Glauber0 Howdy! 16:24, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  4. Yes 123123abcabc (talk) 16:30, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  5. Yes Like I said before, the article space has always been sovereign to the content the community decides it's proper. Wikia has the sidebars and the siderail to advertise on, it has no business shoving videos on the main header too. The article space should be filled with curated encyclopedic information, not filled to the brim with adverts like car race suits. That it's on autoplay and obnoxiously follows you around as you scroll down is just adding insult to injury.
    Limmiegirl Lildeneb.png Talk! ♪ 16:32, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  6. Yes Shaka1277 (talk) 16:35, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  7. Yes AllYourFavorites (talk) 16:40, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  8. Yes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alarex247 (talkcontribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~!
  9. Yes Pedro Washington (talk)
  10. Yes TenaciouzD (talk)
  11. Yes They were never allowed to be added to begin with, they are in direct violation of our editing standards. Wikia staff is breaking our site rules and they should not be allowed to continue to abuse their power in our community. - Chris With no background 17:33, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  12. Yes --Rotting apple (talk) 20:48, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  13. Yes The videos don't add anything to the pages, they are an annoyance that consumes data. NukaTurtle (talk) 20:54, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  14. Yes The videos are here to replace ads. But now an ad plays before the video starts, making it likely that users will just scroll past it. So basically Fandom just wants to add advertisement videos to the top of our pages. What was wrong with the old advertisements anyway? - FDekker talk 01:49, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
  15. Yes No compromise. I share the same opinion as Limmiegirl. Wiki has the sidebars, the middle is our property. The header and middle are ours. You don't see Canada suddenly deciding to show videos of their PM south of the great lakes, or the Queen of England showing videos on her view of French politics in Paris. Wars get started that way. I know I'm being a little extreme, but it's the exact same thing we're facing albeit on a smaller scale. We have excellent written documentation, superbly crafted articles, and a full picture gallery that shows readers pretty much any info or advice theyre looking for. We don't need video!! If they want video so bad, they can create their own wiki YouTube channel, then instead of 10,000 channels spewing redundant misinformed crap, there will be 10,001. StormRider71 (talk) 16:27, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
  16. Yes I think I've made myself clear on the subject. Rebel427 ~ I'll be your huckleberry 07:46, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
  17. Yes "FANDOM" already has the sidebar (where they post misc. stuff that has nothing to do with Fallout or Elder Scrolls or wherever else you might be) and almost a foot at the bottom of each page dedicated to who and what they are. They don't need overly-enlarged bad video at the top of the article that then follows you down the page and you can't escape. Leea (talk) 11:46, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
  18. Yes As I already said in the previous thread, content that is not a part of the article proper is only acceptable as long as it doesn't count as obtrusive. Which a video taking up an entire page before the content proper, with autoplay enabled, definitely is. Likewise, I suggested moving the videos into the sidebar and disabling autoplay for them rather than removing them entirely. — Ivan Pozdeev 13:43, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
  19. Yes Quarterman812 (talk) 18:05, September 12, 2017 (UTC)

Video showing trailers only is acceptable (like on Wookiepedia)

In addition to the previous option, Community self-made video is acceptable

  1. Yes If the video is really a necessity, it has to be done by the community, and picked by the community. Some of the videos we have currently sometimes feel just like promoting a user's Youtube channel, among other things. ☢ Energy X ☣ 16:41, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  2. Yes User:JBour53
  3. Yes The editors here have shown themselves to be more than competent, and I have confidence that this community could show the same quality in videos, if they have to be there. --FFIX (talk) 18:20, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  4. Yes User:Kazakevich - Those who have been in Nukapedia long enough to dedicate their free time to ensuring well made content are most certainly capable of providing game specific videos that would do the community better than - at least from what I've watched - what sounds like an amateur youtuber trying to explain lore of a character/location/etc in a partisan manner. (Specifically calling out the "Fake News Piper" video.) The last thing I care about is drawing parallels to the real world from a video game. It's obnoxious and not at all related to the game content itself. I have no doubt the community could do far better.
  5. Yes Fandom should accept this offer. They've always gotten ad revenue for community made content, and this merely continues their business model. Soviet (talk)

Inclusive with the previous option, Wikia/Fandom made video is acceptable but only with final approval resting with the community, or an appointed community member

  1. Yes Preston Freaking Garvey (talk)
  2. Yes Makes sense to me. I doubt this'll happen though. The most I see us getting is an elected member voicing their opinions on the script. Skysteam (talk)
  3. Yes Although I originally voted for no-tolerance, I've had second thoughts. A well-produced video can actually enhance the overall experience, complimenting what's already provided through text. Provided said videos meet our standards, it should not matter who produces them. Jordanthejq12 (talk) 22:40, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  4. Yes Paladin117>>iff bored; 23:24, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  5. Yes but if we have a suitable alternative this should be considered for priority. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 11:01, September 11, 2017 (UTC)

The previously negotiated settlement is more or less there, but some tweaks are needed (please list what you think these should be)

  1. Yes Sigmund Fraud Talk Contributions 17:14, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
    1. The video is not in the form of a massive banner at the top of the page.
    2. The video does not autoplay, or if it does, it starts muted (I am aware this is an option you can tick in your preferences already)
    3. The community has a say in what the videos contain or acts as a form of quality control, to a certain extent (obviously we can't include or uninclude everything anybody has a problem with, so it would likely need to be a committee of some sort)
    4. The video titles aren't exceptionally clickbaity and stupid. (Notably Piper and ballistic weave)
  2. Yes User:the wandering mercenary why not?
  3. Yes I don't believe we can make Wikia stop and remove the videos, they're determined. But for now, there's still room for negotiation, and look for tweaks to make it more acceptable and hurt less. A must to change is the resolution, this just isn't acceptable, should preferably be 1080p. Sigmund sums up a few more I agree with, reduce the size of it (move it straight to the right rail?), no autoplay (Wikia probably won't accept that), and although I doubt a video quality control team will work, we could give it a try for some time, if there are users here motivated to be in it. Jspoel Speech Jspoel.png 23:41, September 10, 2017 (UTC)

Question 2 - Motion of confidence in the negotiator

Poll finished on 4:03 pm September 13, 2017 (UTC).
Icon vote.png
  • A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.
  • You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section:
    • Use # {{yes}} ~~~ if you support the proposal.
    • Use # {{no}} ~~~ if you are against the proposal.
    • Use # {{neutral}} ~~~ if you wish to abstain.
  • Please do not edit other user's votes.

Yes, Agent c should continue to be the community’s point person for any negotiation

  1. Yes NomadMC (talk) 16:11, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  2. Yes Yodamort (talk) 16:05, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  3. Yes Glauber0 Howdy! 13:19, September 10, 2017 (BRT)
  4. Yes User:the wandering mercenary
  5. Yes
    Limmiegirl Lildeneb.png Talk! ♪ 16:34, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  6. Yes Shaka1277 (talk) 16:35, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  7. Yes AllYourFavorites (talk) 16:40, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  8. Yes ☢ Energy X ☣ 16:41, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  9. Yes 123123abcabc (talk) 16:43, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  10. Yes Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 16:47, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  11. Yes  The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons.png 16:56, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  12. Yes Seems to be doing a pretty good job so far. Skysteam (talk)
  13. Yes TenaciouzD (talk)
  14. Yes User:JBour53
  15. Yes Assuming you still want the responsibility - Chris With no background 17:40, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  16. Yes You've been measured but assertive when necessary, even when given responses that would be frustrating. --FFIX (talk) 18:20, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  17. Yes Rotting apple (talk) 20:49, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  18. Yes You've remained professional and polite enough during your interractions with Wikia, and that is good enough for me. NukaTurtle (talk) 20:57, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  19. Yes Hell to the yeah. --The Courier NCR for life (talk) 23:11, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  20. Yes Paladin117>>iff bored; 23:24, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  21. Yes User:Kazakevich In the time that I have spent on this wiki in particular, I've seen Chad remain professional and courteous to all parties involved in conflict. I have nothing but respect for his position in the community, and believe that he is most certainly up to the task of these negotiations.
  22. Yes He's always managed to guide us through difficult times. I trust you will keep your cool. Jspoel Speech Jspoel.png 23:41, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  23. Yes - FDekker talk 01:38, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
  24. Yes Clollin The Courier (talk) 05:59, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
  25. Yes It's a huge burden, not sure if anyone else could do a better job. Rebel427 ~ I'll be your huckleberry 07:47, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
  26. Yes the fact you know where CC was upto until a few days ago, you know both sides of the table the clearest Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 11:00, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
  27. Yes You do it better than me. I'd be yelling and screaming and my words would be bleeped out. Leea (talk) 11:50, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
  28. Yes As long as he has the motivation and there aren't any better qualified volunteers, I don't see why not. — Ivan Pozdeev 13:48, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
  29. Yes I think you've done pretty good so far. My only bit of advice would be to take a bit of a more hardline stance. If wiki does the videos, it's going to be a disaster and I want us to say that we at least tried our best and fought it tooth and nail. Then when it blows up in their face, it will be solely on them. StormRider71 (talk) 16:34, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
  30. Yes Soviet (talk) As far as I know, he is the most respected member of the community. He has been here longer than anyone else, and is respected both in Discussions and Wikiside. His sentiments are extreme, and he is clearly passionate, but it is a passion shared by the majority of users
  31. Yes Quarterman812 (talk) 18:07, September 12, 2017 (UTC)

No, another member of the leadership team should take this role (please nominate in your comment

  1. No Preston Freaking Garvey (talk) You've been acting with too much emotion. Someone with a cooler head needs to take charge.
  2. No Sigmund Fraud Talk Contributions 17:14, September 10, 2017 (UTC) - After the unnecessary expedition of this poll and especially the fact that you voted to remove contact with Wikia and split leads me to believe you are too biased against Wikia to be a trustworthy negotiator. I don't currently have a nomination though, as I don't know the other staffs' opinions about the matter to form an understanding on their biases. At the moment though, I would say Paladin117, Jspoelstra, or Gunny could be negotiators.

Question 3 - Ending certain forms of cooperation with Fandom

NomadMC here. In addition to C’s questions, I think we should also stop cooperating with Fandom - in terms of community participation and support of certain Fandom interwiki features - until this is over. At the moment we share links to other wikis, and sometimes they ask us to participate in trials or test features. I know it's probably unfair to demand people do things like quit Community Council, but those that are members might want to consider it until this is over at least.


  1. Yes They won't cooperate with us, we don't cooperate with them. Yodamort (talk) 16:13, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  2. Yes Glauber0 Howdy! 16:16, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  3. Yes We don't really have any leverage to use on the negotiating table other than this. They can continue to simply ignore the community if their jackbooting doesn't lead to anything that hurts their bottom line.
    Limmiegirl Lildeneb.png Talk! ♪ 16:34, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  4. Yes Shaka1277 (talk) 16:35, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  5. Yes Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 16:46, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  6. Yes I think we need to do a little more than just stamp our feet. This is a natural first step. Agent c (talk) 16:48, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  7. Yes TenaciouzD (talk)
  8. Yes Let's stop lining Wikia's pockets and start focusing on what we have always wanted to focus on - Providing accurate content that is easily accessible to others. This update showed they are against both of these principals. - Chris With no background 17:45, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  9. Yes User:the wandering mercenary for the craic
  10. Yes As with most conflicts in history, "sacrifices" must be made. And this one seems viable to me. NukaTurtle (talk) 20:58, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  11. Yes - FDekker talk 01:37, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
  12. Yes only as a point of escalation if next steps prove unsuccessful. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 11:00, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
  13. Yes Soviet (talk) Fuck Fandom. If they don't want to cooperate, we shouldn't. One-way Cooperation is capitulation.
  14. Yes Quarterman812 (talk) 18:10, September 12, 2017 (UTC) Yes if they can't cooperate with us why should we have to put up with them?! Also at this point this is the only leverage we have going for us.


  1. No Preston Freaking Garvey (talk) "Fighting fire with Fire" just ends up creating more fire.
  2. No Not at this stage. I don't believe we should stoop to their level unless something REALLY appalling comes from Fandom. AllYourFavorites (talk) 16:40, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  3. No Not big enough to justify that in my opinion. 123123abcabc (talk) 16:44, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  4. No We just need to point out that the videos are currently unacceptable. The Staff mean well, but they don't do well. ☢ Energy X ☣ 16:47, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  5. No This seems extremely drastic. If they absolutely refuse to negotiate with us, the maybe I'll consider it. Skysteam (talk)
  6. No Sigmund Fraud Talk Contributions 17:14, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  7. No Well, they seem to be at least cooperating a little at the moment so it's not time for this yet. May come to this soon though. User:JBour53
  8. No This is its own issue and we should still be cooperating on things that work. --FFIX (talk) 18:20, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  9. No Rotting apple (talk) 20:57, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  10. No As of right now, it's not worth burning bridges. Jordanthejq12 (talk) 22:24, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  11. No Paladin117>>iff bored; 23:24, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  12. No It's too soon. We're still negotiating in my opinion, Wikia is still listening, and we need to keep goodwill from their side. There's no need (yet) for drastic measures. Jspoel Speech Jspoel.png 23:41, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  13. No User:Kazakevich - To end all cooperation with the wiki should not be an option unless all other options have been entirely exhausted. What should be brought up is the obvious micromanagement and overstepping from FANDOM/Wikia itself, and what can be done to correct the deficiency. While it has most certainly been noted by multiple members of the community, I've seen more saber rattling than I have actual discussion. This is not how we reach the higher wiki, and we should be able to come to an agreement together on how to handle the issues at hand.
  14. No I don't feel this is a big enough issue to end cooperation with them. Yes, they're being hard to work with, but if we cease termination with Fandom it may end up hurting us in the long run. It probably would hurt us more than them. Clollin The Courier (talk) 05:57, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
  15. No Nomad, I agree with you 100%...let's get that right. However, I'm also of a mind with Jspoel. I think it's a bit too soon yet. Your idea is spot on, but you don't wanna show your hand before all the cards have been dealt. StormRider71 (talk) 16:40, September 11, 2017 (UTC)


  1. Neutral I don't really know how big a deal the outlined options are. From the sound of it, they don't look like a big enough bargaining chip to affect anything and would rather look like petty spite vandalism. Maybe if we present it in a positive light... E.g. disabling link sharing could carry the message that we don't recommend using our wiki in the state it has been currently brought to. — Ivan Pozdeev 15:20, September 11, 2017 (UTC)

Question 4

I have yet to cast a vote as I am working on other things at present, what I feel needs to be said is: If we are going to say "no, the video must be removed", then we need a new option. Fandom are not going to take them all away because we don't like them, this is their business objective and they aren't going to stop because we don't like their objective. They want ad revenue, no doubt they have passed this through the board of shareholders and it has been approved. A no vote here means we would have to consider other platforms.

For those who have voted no, I am raising a fourth question: Do we need to call a hands on deck forum/meeting to determine what we consider as absolutely essential criteria for video to match and hold Fandom to that standard (this will mean further negotiation) to take place in 2 weeks from the polling start date, or do we consider the platform a lost cause and consider other options? Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 18:52, September 10, 2017 (UTC)

Poll finished on 6:50 pm September 13, 2017 (UTC).
Icon vote.png
  • A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.
  • You can vote by placing the following line in the appropriate section of the option you support:
    • # {{yes}} ~~~
    • # {{no}} ~~~
  • Please do not edit other user's votes.

All hands

  1. Yes A meeting cannot hurt and will expedite the discussion process. Agent c (talk) 18:51, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  2. Yes I would prefer to see no videos, but if we have to, I agree that coming up with an agreed-upon set of criteria is better than nothing. Shaka1277 (talk) 19:55, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  3. Yes For better user experience. ☢ Energy X ☣ 19:57, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  4. Yes Agent C and Shaka1277 have read my mind.... I feel it may help the process, and at the same time knowing how capitalism worked I fear we'll be stuck with them anyway so to have an opportunity like this may help. --Rotting apple (talk) 21:02, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  5. Yes Might as well exhaust all options before giving up. --FFIX (talk) 21:39, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  6. Yes A video, if done well, can actually enhance what's already presented through text. If we can get them to produce something of actual quality, and define what that quality is, it might actually be a net positive for everyone. Jordanthejq12 (talk) 22:37, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  7. Yes Probably a good idea if this isn't solved somehow to some satisfaction in two weeks. Jspoel Speech Jspoel.png 23:41, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  8. Yes User:Kazakevich - Another meeting can not hurt our goal; Videos aren't a bad thing, but shouldn't start automatically or be as click-baity as the ones presented by Fandom themselves. There an obvious need for talks of quality control and script.
  9. Yes User:the wandering mercenary couldnt understand description, said "Fuck yeah"
  10. Yes Not sure how much good it will actually do, given the community is split regarding everything, but worth a shot. Rebel427 ~ I'll be your huckleberry 07:51, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
  11. Yes too many people have had opinions, but haven't been openly vocal. We need to hear those voices and get on the same page with the wider community. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 11:00, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
  12. Yes As long as its in the forum here, sure. If its in the chat, count me out. I'll never be able to be there at the same time as everyone else.Leea (talk) 11:57, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
  13. Yes Agreed with Leea. Long as it's in forums, yes. NomadMC (talk) 12:12, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
  14. Yes 123123abcabc (talk) 12:54, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
  15. Yes Glauber0 Howdy! 14:12, September 11, 2017 (UTC)

Lost platform

Agenda and Scheduling

Okay, I think its clear that going ahead with a meeting is a good idea. At this stage I would like to open the floor to agenda items. We have the following things to discuss.

  • An update on any negotiations, and other actions
  • Possible action to progress our case further whilst staying on network
  • Possible engagement with Wikia on video in line with the proposed deal- if we should participate and whom that contact person should be.
  • Possible alternatives if the situation cannot be resolved.

Please let me know if you want anything added to the agenda below.

I'll be asking a number of people to speak on certain issues, but as always there will be plenty of room for discussion.

I propose that the meeting be held at 3pm North American Eastern Time on Sunday 24 September, this should be 8pm in London, 9pm Central European time, and Midday North American Western. If there are any objections please note them below and we'll look into alternative scheduling, the more objections the harder we look for a new time.

We have arranged facilities for the meeting, it will be held online. It is open to all persons who have participated in any of the video discussion threads up to today, except those employed by Fandom/Wikia inc (as this is the Community's meeting), or have been employed by them in the recent past.

Votes taken in this meeting will be taken as consensus view of the wiki, so everyone is encouraged to attend.

We have setup a discord server (Nukapedia's Fallout Shelter) located here. It is mobile friendly (via an app) and is very flexible.

Although everyone is welcome in our social space (The-Common-Room), only persons who meet the above criteria will be admitted to The-Town-Hall (where the meeting will be located). You may be asked to verify your account before this access is granted. Agent c (talk) 21:05, September 11, 2017 (UTC)

Agenda Items
Time Objections


How are other sites doing with these videos? Have they also started these discussions, or something else? ☢ Energy X ☣ 16:41, September 10, 2017 (UTC)

Harry Potter was one of the testbeds, it is my understanding that when this was being floated the "5 best/favourite" style video was requested by them (this was in response to me saying that that type of video would not be acceptable to us). Runescape wiki has had the video temporarily pulled, but I believe this was due to the information within being factually incorrect, and one of the people that the footage had been taken from objecting to this (suggesting that the footage might be, well, pirated) - We have reached out to those whom we have been able to identify, but have not had a response. Agent c (talk) 16:47, September 10, 2017 (UTC)

Guys, remember, I need something to negotiate with. If we're looking at an absolute "no" position, we're going to need something else, like a willingness to take some sort of action, or something else we can give on. Agent c (talk) 18:26, September 10, 2017 (UTC)

Just @ Fraud - I have no "bias" against Wikia. I'd rather go back to last week where I was a happy member of the community council and occasional contributor to the fandom news service. I was the one who actually worked to open up commuication links with the Wikia Gaming team before they moved on.

Out of everyone who has had discussions with wikia in the months leading up to this, I was arguably the most positive, although admittedly still broadly negative, I was happy to work with them to guide through the voting process for approval from the community, and potentially vote for such a thing if and when they showed they could make a video that would get over the quality threshold that was in question every other time we rejected video on this wiki.

As for my vote to actually do something. Unless the wiki is prepared to give me some sort of other leverage - such as a willingness to take action, or a willingness to move its position away from absolutism on video, then I, or anyone who might replace me, will have our hands hands are tied. It will be the shortest negotiation in history whether it is me, you, or anyone else. Agent c (talk) 18:59, September 10, 2017 (UTC)

Would it be possible as a compromise position of sorts to have these videos exist, but in a dedicated section of the wiki? My problem is that they're in the way of the wiki itself without presenting much in the way of enhancing what's already there. I dunno, I'm just tossing something out there. Jordanthejq12 (talk) 22:35, September 10, 2017 (UTC)

I doubt they will compromise for one wiki, the fact is, they want them at the top, visible and in your face so they generate ad revenue. They move them elsewhere they have to do it for all and they have to look at how to make it viable for them. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 23:22, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
In addition to Saka's comment, the top 10 pages are on their "hitlist" for a reason. Make no mistake, this isn't about improving content, this is about creating a platform for advertising. Thats why its at the top. The plan is for less ads to be on the page as a result, whether or not you think the cost is too high a price is up to you. Agent c (talk) 23:25, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
I think we shouldn't take too drastic action at this point, still room for talk and adjusting things. I'm also looking a bit ahead in time, to see what will happen in let's say 6 months. Wikia should be able to monitor the result of those videos; are they making more money by then (which isn't a bad thing in itself, we should all profit from it), but moreover from our side, how are the views of the pages with the videos, and in general. If we lose a lot of visitors, they may rethink their strategy by then. About the videos, I rarely see any ads in them, they just play a 2 minute video and that's it. Are you getting other results? Jspoel Speech Jspoel.png 23:41, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
I dont't know if the ads are actually in the platform, it is what the platform is for. From what I've been reading elsewhere, the VP of sales is the one pushing this heavily, and wikia have stated in their "Wiki modernisation" posts that this is about replacing ads. None of us profit from these video, I'm not getting a salary. Agent c (talk) 23:55, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking more of they could hire more personnel and spend more time on making good videos, if they must :) Jspoel Speech Jspoel.png 00:02, September 11, 2017 (UTC)

(If you switch ads on in preferences, you will see them. they have given editor's rights not to see them. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 00:37, September 11, 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't logged in. I very rarely am getting an ad. Maybe 2 in 40 tries. Jspoel Speech Jspoel.png 00:51, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
I'd have thought it would have been higher than that. Maybe 1 in 10 at least. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 00:56, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
My guess is that Wikia relies on a terrible third-party to manage its ads towards european visitors. I have a ad every 3 page reloads on a vanilla Firefox but every time the ad loads I only get the audio and no image. The ads dont even load properly and it forces me to reload the page if I want to watch the video. --2A01:E35:2E38:9230:B068:6985:8096:7B96 02:05, September 11, 2017 (UTC)

In regards to Question 3: Fandom should not be allowed to control what we have on the site, their total disregard for our rules and policies shows how little they really care about all of the hard work and dedication everyone has put into it. Their obvious money grab is their only goal, from a business stand point I can understand that they need to support themselves, but forcing content on people, going above everyone's head and saying there wasn't enough time for someone to evaluate a couple minutes worth of content is a load of bull. If they want to work with us, and follow our guidelines and have someone appointed to review the videos before they are put up then great, we could have High Quality videos apposed to the bile they're trying to slap us with. If they don't want to see things from our point of view then we shouldn't work with them at all and remove the videos ourselves. So this is neither a yes or no, but a maybe. Depending on how they respond next. Rebel427 ~ I'll be your huckleberry 08:00, September 11, 2017 (UTC)

In regarding the "ending cooperating" with wikia, what does that exactly mean? Not listening to them anymore? Splitting like some of us did a long time ago?Leea (talk) 12:01, September 11, 2017 (UTC)

End of co-operation would be a withdrawal of projects on Fandom (e.g. withdrawal from the Game Wiki's ring at the bottom of the main page). No split, but that doesn't mean it won't be considered if we cannot de-escalate and come to an agreement with our host. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 12:11, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
  • NomadMC, the "ending cooperation with Fandom" title is misleading. It sounds like "moving away from Wikia" but it actually merely suggests disabling some participation options for the wiki. I wonder if votes are misguided due to this. — Ivan Pozdeev 14:21, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
Made minor changes to the wording of Q3 due to some apparent confusion. We are not suggesting leaving now, merely (as Ivan says) stopping certain forms of participation that we have all legal right to stop participating in. NomadMC (talk) 03:43, September 12, 2017 (UTC)