Forums: Index > Wiki proposals and applications > Video negotiated settlement

Thank you for your interest in the video forum.

In order to work out where to go from here, I've created another forum asking the community where our "Red line" is, and whether or not I should continue to be the point person on this.

You can find the new forum here. I look forward to seeing your thoughts on this matter. Agent c (talk) 16:19, September 10, 2017 (UTC)

Old ForumEdit

I have negotiated with Jen Burton @ Wikia/Fandom the following settlement for dealing with Fandom-Made video for the wiki. I bring it to the community for your consideration.

  • Video remains for now, but proposed replacements will be considered (small groups or individually written scripts, not a full collaborative wikiwide process).
  • We can propose new additional videos (again small groups or individually written scripts, not a full collaborative wikiwide process).
  • Fandom may post more videos, but the replacement process could be used
  • A single appointed person would have the opportunity to comment on scripts 24hrs or so before production. This person would be appointed following this agreement being adopted.

In the meantime, whilst this vote is running, Fandom may post more video.

I will not be voting to preserve my negotiating position. Agent c (talk) 20:26, September 8, 2017 (UTC)

Known Videos

Poll finished on 8:26 pm September 15, 2017 (UTC).
  • 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 people's votes.


  1. Icon check It's better than nothing. Paladin117>>iff bored; 20:39, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
  2. Icon check As much as I want to say no, Paladin is right. This is a much better deal than what we had previously. As vague as the deal is ("considered", "propose", "could be used", "opportunity"), at least wikia will be getting input from the wikia. I say we see how this goes, and work from there. I don't see this getting much better if we don't accept this. Skysteam (talk)
  3. Icon check TheBEASTisnear (talk) Some input on our part is better than nothing, which is was the last alternative was. As much as I hate to say it, there is probably going to have to be some compromise. They could just crack down even harder if we keep protesting. This is basically an invading army on the Wikis half, and now Nukapedia either has to compromise to their will or face a mass exodus. I don't think some people will ever make it to the 'new land' if that happened.
  4. Icon check I like it. Assuming things go as planned this could be a good agreement. I understand why wikia wants to add videos and I understand why a whole wiki wide made input could be overwhelming and unnecessary. Let's hope this goes well. If not then expect the former mentioned actions of people leaving the wikia to find a new similar one will happen. - 2607:FB90:5119:B5E5:0:4B:4F4A:DF01


  1. Icon cross Preston Freaking Garvey (talk)
  2. Icon cross Considering the near-vehement refusal to cooperate earlier, this proposition seems like a very weak attempt at keeping things under their control. And the list is only a bunch of "can", "may" and "opportunity". Which still looks like we don't have a say in Fandom/Wikia's plans. NukaTurtle (talk) 20:42, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
  3. Icon cross I'm sorry, but I know blatant sweeping under the rug when I see it. If they want to earn this community's trust, then they need to do a lot more than provide such a weak solution that they give no promises on even upholding, especially after the disgraceful E-Mails that you shared with us on the prior forum. 寧靜 Fox 20:45, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
  4. Icon cross Chad, I appreciate the effort you've put into this with trying to reach an amicable agreement, but the word "considered" scares the hell out of me. Considered by who? Us? Them? I've been on both sides of "considered" and in a nutshell it means "Good effort but we are going to do it our way regardless of how you feel...but thank you for wasting your time." Same with anything we might propose; odds are 20:1 it will be shot down. My feeling is if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Hundreds of thousands if not millions haved viewed, used, and edited the wiki over the years. Why do we suddenly need video? Simple answer: we don't. StormRider71 (talk) 21:00, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
  5. Icon cross I am the same mind as StormRider here, Its an offer to talk to, but ultimately ignore us if they so wish. With the contempt they have already shown us, I cannot in good faith trust them on anything less than affirmatives. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 21:15, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
  6. Icon cross Wikia staff have shown they do not care about their contributors. They have lied to you before, Chad, and they have lied to us all. The videos cause a page to load slowly on lower end computers like mine. Wikia may give us what we want at the end of this, but it's only a matter of time before they betray us again. - Chris 4 Star Dragon Ball Edit 21:21, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
  7. Icon cross I agree with the statements made by many casting no. I fear with the way they had initially promised similar options for us, only to not keep their word that history will repeat itself. I know so much hard work by Agent C and others have gone into getting us this offer, and thank you all for that, but I'm worried it's another lie in attempt to placate us. --Rotting apple (talk) 21:25, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
  8. Icon cross They've already shown they don't care. Either we get our way entirely on the videos or they have gotten their way when they don't deserve it. Yodamort (talk) 21:22, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
  9. Icon cross These words sound emptier than a vacuum - Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 21:37, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
  10. Icon cross Wikia continues to push this crap despite all the negative feedback telling them how much of a bad idea it is. As usual. Great Mara (talk) 22:05, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
  11. Icon cross It's so hard for me to acquiesce with such an intrusive, irrelevant feature. This is the kind of Web 2.* marketing garbage that I actively oppose in my professional career, so I certainly can't support it here. There are much better ways to go about it that can give them a boost in the "video market" that don't intrude on our carefully built article content. Chad I appreciate the position you've taken and the attempt to arrive at some kind of resolution, but I don't want it on record that I agree with the settlement, because I don't, and I don't think you do either. But again, I understand it. --HighFiveBearLeftHighFiveBearRight 22:09, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
  12. Icon cross Soviet (talk) That was a pile of bullshit. They promised nothing. I don't mind if it's a group or individual that represents the community in this process, but raising a user or group of users above the community, only to join Fandom in this farce will clearly cause division. Until they promise something concrete, I suggest disregarding everything they say.
  13. Icon cross The end of Nukapedia is nigh. Too little too late, Fandom. NomadMC (talk) 23:05, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
  14. Icon cross I appreciate that you've gone great lengths to represent us and get us to this point, but Fandom's response to those strides is more than unacceptable. The first point is probably the scariest, seeing as how it implies that Fandom can flat out deny our requests for replacements, no matter how unprofessional and/or politically charged the material is. Language like "propose" and "can" are terribly shifty, and give far too little room for us to make decisions for ourselves. The fourth point only lets the appointed representative "comment" on videos, like we're just random YouTube users. Unfortunately, I think this give us little to no room in making decisions -- despite being the group with godawful material forced down our throats. AllYourFavorites (talk) 23:13, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
  15. Icon cross83.71.84.218User:the wandering mercenary; for the craic
  16. Icon cross C, while I appreciate the amount of work and time you've put into trying to reach a deal between us and fandom, this does not seem like a good deal at all for us. It honestly seems like Fandom is trying to keep themselves in control. "Proposed replacements will be CONSIDERED Considered. No promises. We can PROPOSE new additional videos. (Who makes these videos? Us or them?). "FANDOM posts more videos, but the replacement process may be used." I doubt their new videos will be any better than the ones they already put on. "A single appointed person would have the opportunity to comment on scripts 24 hours or so before production." What power does this person have? do they just spit recommendations at Fandom, and if we're lucky they'll listen to them, if not they'll do whatever they want? If Fandom knew what was really on the table for the options that we have right now, they would just give us full control of video and let the entire matter be put to rest.--The Courier NCR for life (talk) 23:31, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
  17. Icon cross I simply put do not agree with these poor-quality videos being forcefully added to Nukapedia articles, because they are more or less a distraction that offers little to the people who simply want to read the pages. --Breakin'Benny (talk) 23:47, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
  18. Icon cross I'm against videos on our pages to begin with, so I don't care about replacements. Because our Wikia is a central place in the Fallout community, however, I might be in favour of a special video section where we feature videos. But no, definitely no videos on our carefully curated pages. - FDekker talk 01:36, September 9, 2017 (UTC)
  19. Icon cross These videos are awful, and if this is the "Quality Content" we have to look forward to I don't want them on this site. I don't want Fandom having anything to do with this site. They obviously don't play the game, nor care about our opinions on the matter. It's just a cash grab and it's forced on us. They will consider nothing and do what they please. Rebel427 ~ I'll be your huckleberry 01:57, September 9, 2017 (UTC)
  20. Icon cross About the "agreement", the phrase in Russian would be "Ni o chiom." (≈"It doesn't really say anything"). I appreciate the effort, but this is nothing. Simply nothing. Regarding the place for Fandom-suggested content: nothing not a part of the wiki's community-written material has a place in an article proper. That's the key point in the definition of a "wiki": it's a site whose content can be edited by its users. The moment this ceases to be true, it's no longer a wiki. Wikia can suggest supplemental material in areas reserved for banners e.g. the side pane (as they already do) but again, leave it up to viewer whether to pay attention to it, so no autoplay. — Ivan Pozdeev 02:33, September 9, 2017 (UTC)
  21. Icon cross Even if we give them the benefit of the doubt, I don't think it will still work. There has to be someone from this Wiki to actually understand the quality of the content (videos) to be placed in the articles. It would've been better if it wasn't in the mainspace, but somewhere else . As said, this is best left for the community to make videos, by making a Youtube channel or something. Not like this. ☢ Energy X ☣ 11:31, September 9, 2017 (UTC)
  22. Icon cross No. They still give us no control over what is posted. It is our community. Its still giving them all of the control over what is posted here, which they apparently know very little about. They don't even give us the priority and ability to make our own videos, which we have done in the past. That should have been common sense, but they are only trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator.Leea (talk) 11:41, September 9, 2017 (UTC)
  23. Icon cross After a while dealing with the portuguese Wikia, i learned that they will try to make a "temporary" solution that will eventually benefit them, utterly ignoring what the communities want. Glauber0 Howdy! 14:36, September 9, 2017 (UTC)
  24. Icon cross I agree with the bulk of the above "no" votes. Shaka1277 (talk) 19:10, September 9, 2017 (UTC)
  25. Icon cross As above, I have to agree with this, I do have more agreement with what Energy X said though, as in its current place it makes it more difficult to view the content I want on the page. LBraden (talk)
  26. Icon cross Maybe a baby step in the right direction, but too much weasel wording there, and they backpedaled on pretty much everything they had promised in the original talks so it seems hard to think they won't do it again. FFIX (talk)
  27. Icon cross I'm no going to lie, stunts like this definitely contributed to my decision to retire from the Wiki. I very much agree with the nice people above me. MadeMan2 "Say 'ello to my little friend!" 22:42, September 9, 2017 (UTC)
  28. Icon cross User:Kazakevich I had to stop being active in the community a long time ago due to my status as an Active Duty service member. It boils me to see such an abhorrent overstepping from the higher wiki. A gross overstep such as this severs trust from those who constantly provide their free time in order to keep the wiki function, up to date, especially user friendly and welcoming, and above all - accurate to the game lore itself. I never thought I would have to come back and voice my opinion on something that should have never become an issue to begin with - but here we are. (User talk:Kazakevich
  29. Icon cross I oppose the placement of videos on these pages in any capacity. This is a wiki, not some second-rate fansite. Its purpose is to provide up-to-date, reliable information about various aspects of the Fallout games, not clickbait. Jordanthejq12 (talk) 04:12, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  30. Icon cross This is like making me eat raw garlic instead of raw onions. Technically an improvement but it's gonna make me puke either way.
    Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪ 05:02, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  31. Icon cross The proposed settlement is as meaningless as they come. If the videos must stay, I recommend that Wikia/Fandom either allow us to control the video content (even if the replacements are done over time), or be straightforward in their refusal to do so. I have seen enough to be distrustful of any further discretion on their part. --Skire (talk) 05:14, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  32. Icon cross I'm sorry but this in its current design is just unacceptable. Absolutely unprofessional as it makes this website - which most people would agree to be the premier Fallout knowledge resource on the internet - into something akin to a no-name fansite run by some kid from his bedroom. I genuinely cannot see the point of this and you creating ill-will on a site that depends on enthusiastic happy fans giving up their free time. --2A00:23C5:B703:3400:139:C147:8781:EBC9 12:37, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  33. Icon cross It's terrible Kylxackep (talk) 20:51, September 10, 2017 (UTC)


  1. Icon neutral 123123abcabc (talk) 21:04, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
  2. Icon neutral DisgustingWastelander (talk) 21:11, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
  3. Icon neutral It appears we can't stop it, so what can we do to soften the blow, so to speak. Work with Wikia in making the videos, Unfortunately, I have considerable doubts the mentioned proposals are going to work, they demand quite a bit from people here, on a steady basis, and Wikia doesn't appear to have much patience. But as the videos are now, it isn't working either. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 22:04, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
  4. Icon neutral I'm with Jspoel here: as the inclusion of the videos seems to be a certainty, at least let us have a (minor) say in what is, or not, included. Let us hope that, in time, they start taking our wishes and requests into consideration. TheDeadZone (talk) 23:28, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
  5. Icon neutral Switched my vote from yes to neutral simply because I can not support the obvious simplification and revenue attempt, even given the backlash of your supporters. But I also know this is the best offer we will get. So, I will not vote no but truly I don't want it. JBour53
  6. Icon neutral Figure I should put in my two cents. Don't like the current offer, too little concrete things that wikia/fandom will do, too many maybes. At the same time, however, I fear that this may be the best offer amd its better than nothing. Richie9999 (talk) 16:34, September 10, 2017 (UTC)

Excluded votesEdit


Can there be a different person talking for future videos? The current guy has a monotone voice that I cannot stand, and I sincerely hope that they have someone better on their payroll. 寧靜 Fox 20:29, September 8, 2017 (UTC)

The narrator wasn't a part of the discussion, sorry. Agent c (talk) 20:40, September 8, 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I feel about this. Reading through the votes already casted I see many good points on both sides. Will need a short time to think about it and weigh the pros and cons before casting mine, but know I will definitely cast a vote. Rotting apple (talk) 21:10, September 8, 2017 (UTC)

I'll be blunt; this isn't a settlement. A settlement requires both sides to give in. All I see is a lot of "consider", "can propose" "may post" and so on. I've been handling legal texts for years, but I don't think I've ever seen words this empty. - Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 21:53, September 8, 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if it's been noticed, but now there's also a video on Fallout 4 console commands. Same poor quality, at least concerning the resolution. Wikia, you can do better than this. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 23:21, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. This is precisely the reason for my no vote. --FFIX (talk) 22:31, September 9, 2017 (UTC)

You know, I'm actually curious what the no voters think will happen once this vote is over. Because as of right now, it looks like this vote will end with more bad videos and probably a dead wiki. Paladin117>>iff bored; 02:15, September 9, 2017 (UTC)

Argumentum ad temperantiam - The issue, from what I understand, is that for years now, Wikia have been pushing around the communities being hosted by them, by making it disturbingly clear that they have little to no use for input from those that have helped make Wikia into the powerhouse that it is today.
To exasperate matters, Fandom emerged from Wikia, and it's been made abundantly clear that they are moving on from any sort of encyclopediac nature that they may or may not have once embraced, and have instead chosen to embrace clickbait, to the point where they're completely willing to throw around, on a daily basis, dozens upon dozens of low-quality, and a lot of times, non-factual articles and videos across both the Wikia spectrum, and their social media mediums.
Wikia, as it currently stands, are not willing to compromise in any sort of meaningful way, even though there are plenty of options for them to take, to continue this matter amicably - a false dilemma, if I've ever seen a perfect example of one. On our end, there is no true compromise, as if we just blindly accept their "terms," then all we are doing is betraying our core tenets as a wiki of factual information, serving the Fallout fans; not the Wikia overlords and their invasive clickbait, who have absolutely no qualms with ignoring us when we need help, under the guise that Wikia does not get involved through independent wiki communities, as they "respect" local wiki policies and guidelines.
Now we just know that they're lazy and/or incompetent, and that they are perfectly willing to disrupt any wiki community as they see fit, in order to fit in with their agendas. 寧靜 Fox 02:30, September 9, 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd say they're not "lazy and/or incompetent" but desperate. This looks very much like SourceForge: at one point, they went so desperate trying to monetize they started seeping malware into downloads (this lead to so much shit hitting the fan they became a pariah in OSS movement and ended up sold off so as not to go bankrupt altogether). If Wikia is so much on the edge, they may have too lost the Mandate of Heaven a viable business model (probably in part owing to some newly-emerged tough competition with some fresh ideas and/or the founders/key members losing interest, launching a downward spiral of gradual deterioration like any other system without working feedback) and are not long for this world.
    • Anyway, I don't see much of a problem for us content-wise. A function to extract page content is built into MediaWiki, so moving it elsewhere with a bot is not a problem, this could be done in a completely automated way (I'm pretty sure there's already software for this, including distributed one). Likewise, it's not impossible to synchronize new useful edits between wikis since APIs for that are standard. So, it doesn't really matter where specifically the content is going to be thanks to CC-BY-SA.
    • The main concern is tearing the community apart. But again, if Wikia makes the wiki unusable (all that heavy junk content makes pages grind to a halt and annoys the crap out of readers and editors alike), there'll be no community split - few new contributors will come, seeing as it's practically impossible to, well, contribute.
    • On a bright note, I can only salute them for trying to provide some more relevant suggested content (I blocked the banner panes specifically for being all superheroes and blockbusters, things that I don't give a sh1t about, at the point when I couldn't take this anymore), only not approve of the specific way as too obtrusive. — Ivan Pozdeev 04:22, September 9, 2017 (UTC)
  • Speaking of "mass exoddus", I may have a better idea.
    • I personally am going to stay until I can't take the crap any longer or until I've nothing else to do, whichever comes first (I've just completed FO2 (yet again) and have added about all the required information I immediately saw was missing here, so I may move on to other things).
    • I suggest others do the same. Whoever is fed up at the moment joins the migration task force: scout a destination, set up information transfer/synchronization, install and set up the necessary extensions and collaboration tools, etc.
    • The longer Wikia will keep playing dickheads and the harder they do it, the farther this process will go and the more activity will move away. They'll be seeing the dynamics and the community will not have to fully commit itself to either choice until the very end.
    • Since people would be on the force while they are disgruntled with the state of affairs here (nothing stops them from taking a break once their discontent seeps out), they'll be the ones with the most incentive from all the community to keep the initiative going. Of course, this turnover model requires central coordination so that a new volunteer can relatively quickly come up to speed and take up any task that was left unfinished. — Ivan Pozdeev 08:23, September 9, 2017 (UTC)

You spelled negotiated wrong in the title of this forum.

I'm not going to vote because I haven't been around here very much the past few weeks in the first place and don't really foresee that to change much in the coming months, but I want to know a summary of the mindset of the common No vote here. From what I gather, the two options are "We let Wikia add their videos to whatever page they want with absolutely no input from any of us, including staff like bureaucrats," (my take on the no position), or "Wikia can add their videos to pages, but they are scrutinized by current Fallout Wiki members," (my take on the yes position). Where's the argument there? Everyone screeching about Wikia taking away your freedom or whatever is completely counterintuitive to your side because your side is effectively "let's have no freedom!"

I've seen a few of these videos, and honestly I don't see the huge kerfuffle, at least not for an issue we can actually change right now. I specifically watched the videos on Ballistic weave and Cait, and they don't seem that bad. I only listened to Cait partially, since other things were taking up most of my attention, but ballistic weave's video sounds basically like a summary of the page. Hell, half of the video is literally Nukapedia. So that crushes the "false info" issue the warnings imply, which sounds like a pretty major fallacy now. The only real issue I have with them is the size of the video. If the default form of the video was a tiny view that followed you down the page rather than a sodding massive banner across the top of a page, I think it would be a fair addition to the wiki, even in its current form. Sigmund Fraud Talk Contributions 12:57, September 10, 2017 (UTC)

Many members of the community insist that the content appearing on articles abide by the longstanding policies of the wiki. If that constitutes having "no freedom" for you, then so be it. As for what people think of the actual content of the videos, see here. --Skire (talk) 18:01, September 10, 2017 (UTC)

Wikia lied to us, more than once, they use stolen content in already low-quality videos filled with irrelevant content and terrible attempts at humour.

Then there's the fact that they're on autoplay, and they follow you as you scroll down, even when paused, taking up bandwidth and costing a lot of people money just to visit certain articles.

Then there's the condescending emails, and their absolute refusal to make this a collaborative project, because I guarantee you that they know that the videos are clickbait, and that's all they care about.

Yeah. I see nothing wrong, here, either. 2607:FB90:7CB9:5B37:F3B2:E719:E784:BAAC 14:55, September 10, 2017 (UTC)

Update from FANDOMEdit

Hey all, please see Update from FANDOM. Jen Burton@fandom (help forum | blog)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+