Talk:Forking Policy

UK-inw
Can you please put the interview on the Ukrainian page? Thanks in advance.  DDPAT talk 17:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

This policy is unfair
Please remove the part about how "Departing admins and other rightholders must make a clean break from the wiki" and stop revoking their rights. You justify this on the grounds that they have a conflict of interest, but it seems more like a manipulative tactic to stop forking. Now, sometimes they vandalise the Fandom Wiki, but not necessarily. This part is actually bad for Fandom wikis that have been forked, as it leaves them with less admins. I think what you should do instead is treat forked wikis the same as any other wiki, revoking/blocking admins who vandalise them and letting people adopt wikis if they have no admin activity for 60 days as a result of the fork. --Noisy miner (talk) 08:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I share your concerns regarding the policy, particularly in the context of rights holders' demands. If a rights holder, like a game studio, requests a name change for a wiki due to IP or trademark reasons, Fandom's policy appears to be in a tricky position. It seems to me that Fandom's rules shouldn't override legal IP rights. Trademark law is quite clear about ownership and usage rights, and Fandom’s policy might be stepping into murky waters if it conflicts with these rights. This aspect of the Forking Policy might need reevaluation to ensure it aligns with legal standards. --Cepto (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Forking within Fandom
Is it ok to leave links to a fork if the fork itself is on Fandom? Like the UnSonic wiki forked from the UnAnything wiki because the community didn't like all the Sonic.EXE content, but the UnAnything Wiki has links to UnSonic on the main page and even in pages that exist on both wikis. Scampton &#91;The Great&#93; 20:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

So, in other words-
-we have to leave a perfect copy, and give you all our work, so you don't lose your precious, precious ad revenue and retain your stranglehold on wikis?

Is this because of Hollow Knight?

VestaServal (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * hi vesta Scampton &#91;The Great&#93; 22:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * So this is the STUPIDEST and MOST DISCUSTING policy I've ever seen. This policy enables Fandom to steal all works of the communities, and make profits by stuffing up advertisements in pages. Fandom is just like the relentless mosquito, sucking the blood of the communities for its own hidden purpose by fair means or foul. FANDOM, HOW UGLY YOU ARE!!! The last words in the policy, "We would, of course, like you to stay on Fandom!", is so IRONIC. It should be "We FORCE you to stay on Fandom", right?
 * Besides, where's your promises, fandom? You eat them? You promised that for multilingual wikis, after some wikis forked, the rest can link to the new forked wikis in their language selections. But the fact is, after the main wiki forked, you immediately forbid the rest wikis to create links to the new wiki, even revoked the admins' right to edit those links, and set up a global filter to disable links to new wikis! How can we TRUST you, Fandom?! (Don't misunderstand my words Vesta, the "you" in this paragraph refers to Fandom. )
 * I was an active editor on several Fandom wikis, but now, Fandom's toxic behaviors make me have to leave here completely. Everyone, if you can find out the true face of Fandom, just follow me by CLOSING YOUR ACCOUNT HERE, and abandon all stuffs on this stupid website. Then, do not click in any links towards any fandom wiki. This is what fandom should get! --Account going to be closed (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Something agree.Gongxiang01 Googology Lover (讨论·贡献) Can you speak Chinese? 03:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This policy does raise serious concerns about Fandom's approach to community work and intellectual property. It seems to prioritize Fandom's interests, particularly in terms of ad revenue and content control, over the rights and preferences of the community members who actually create and maintain these wikis. The policy’s insistence on leaving a 'perfect copy' behind feels more like retaining control rather than respecting the open-source ethos of knowledge sharing. Moreover, the strict rules about linking to forked wikis and the handling of multilingual wikis show a lack of flexibility and respect for the community's evolving needs. This approach could harm Fandom's credibility and trust within the wiki community. --Cepto (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Sitenotice etc.
The new policy update mentions this:


 * Sitenotices and Anonnotices referencing the discussion, the fork, or the new URL are not permitted.

A decision like this is unfathomably detrimental to the health of the communities you are supposed to be supporting. Staff use these MediaWiki pages in order to relay important details to our users no matter where they are on the wiki - which includes fork announcements, since it's only fair to those users to let them know of the decision (where they can then decide to move to the new community or stick with the old one). Having to contact FANDOM SUPPORT in order to request the ONE SPECIFIC TEMPLATE you are mandated to use if you choose to fork which can only be posted in ONE PLACE with no links permitted anywhere else is unbelievably shortsighted. On many wikis the "main page" just redirects to the discussion forums anyway so there's next to no chance of an average user even finding said announcement unless they already know about it.

I've been on Wikia for a long while - I remember when we all switched skins to Oasis - but this is possibly the scummiest thing I've seen from the company in well over a decade. 184.102.102.180 23:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with you. --Gongxiang01 Googology Lover (讨论·贡献) Can you speak Chinese? 03:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * This new policy on restricting sitenotices and anonnotices is quite restrictive and seems to undermine the autonomy and informational needs of wiki communities. These notices are vital tools for communicating significant changes, including fork decisions. Limiting announcements to a specific template and location restricts the flow of information, potentially leaving many users in the dark about key community decisions. This approach doesn’t seem to support the idea of a community-driven platform. It’s important for users to be informed and able to make their own choices about where to contribute, and this policy seems to hinder that. --Cepto (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)