Talk:Wikia, Inc.

Current status

3Apes redirects here, with no explanation in the article of the link. Looking at 3Apes, it says that "Wikia will replace 3apes on or about March 1st. All the work you do here until then will be imported at that time. Please Go look around over there and send feedback to me on the 3apes mailing list."

Unfortunately, it doesn't even state the year, so I'm left assuming it refers to 2006, but can't be sure. Meanwhile, looking at wikia itself doesn't provide any further hints, just links to wikicities, kennisnet, memory alpha and uncyclopedia, which appear to be projects within the wikia fold. How 3Apes fits into this is not clear.

Perhaps someone who knows could pad out this article? Jamse 16:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikia no longer replaces 3Apes. There was a suggestion Wikia would be a search directory, but it turned into a wiki hosting company instead, so 3Apes is irrelevant to it. Perhaps the redirect should be deleted. Angela . 05:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angela article merge

In my opinion, Angela's article should be merged here because she is more notable as the co-founder of Wikia than her position in the board of trustees. For example Scott Jarkoff, the co-founder of deviantART is redirected to his company's article. --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 06:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. She's notable enough to have her own article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think she's more notable as a soon to be former member of the Wikipedia board. But redirecting her to Wikimedia wouldn't make any sense. Redirection doesn't seem reasonable at all. -anon

Neither merge nor redirection makes sense. Wikipedia is not a newspaper where the past is only relevant if it directly informs current events. WAS 4.250 13:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She may be more notable as co-founder of Wikia, but she has other accomplishments and notability. Powers 15:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I profoundly disagree. Her notability is not solely confined to her work with Wikia (though it is the major determinant). She is also notable for her work on Wikipedia, which would not be well treated within the Wikia, Inc. article. Captainktainer * Talk 00:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As with several others above, I feel that Beesley's article should remain a standalone, since she has grounds for notability beyond her affiliation with Wikia. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 03:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed a merge during the AFD, so it would be cowardly to cave in now. I think any notable non-Wikia Inc. info (both lines of it) on Angela could be merged into the appropriate article. This page is never going to be more than a (forgive me) boring stub. Yomangani 16:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support the merge for the reasons stated against keeping the article in the 3 AfDs it's had. 2 keeps followed by a non-consensus... Maybe the community could reach consensus in merging. Big enfasis on Wikia is put in the arguments asserting she's encyclopedic, so many pro-deletion could agree in mentioning her here, not in a stand-alone article (of course, removing all the tabloid trivia, WP:OR, about her that has nothing to do with Wikia). Isn't there an AfM? --euyyn 00:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an AfM. It's called ~~Wikipedia:Requested moves~~Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. Angela . 08:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's for moving. If a merge discussion is warranted, one would go to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. Powers 13:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I do note the following from Wikipedia:Proposed mergers: "lengthy discussions should be confined to the talk pages of the articles involved." That'd be here. Powers 13:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant Wikipedia:Proposed mergers not moves. Angela . 14:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I was reading the Signpost article, I immediately thought that the article might be appropriate as a merge somewhere. After going to Angela's article, I saw the merger notice, so I came here post haste to lend my support to the proposed merger. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Signpost article? Powers 21:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one. Angela . 02:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose any merge for the reason badlydrawnjeff has given. She is notable enough to have her own article. This move seems very much like subtlely trying to get rid of the article, which the 3 AfD votes have already rejected. (JROBBO 03:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I support the merge. Angela's notability as a board member is no longer applicable. She is therefore only notable because of Wikia and not noatble enough (any more) to warrant her own article. Viridae ^Talk 03:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support this, Angela is notable enough for her own article. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge tag removed

The merge tag has been removed, there is no consensus to merge Angela Beesley with this article. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For-profit

Are the words "for-profit" really necessary? All companies intend to generate profit, and let's face it, it's an awkward phrase. I think we can safely assume that most people can tell the difference between the words "Wikia" and "Wikimedia" - there's two extra syllables, for starters - and it says "company" not "organization". (I'm going to remove it, but no doubt someone will get pissed and probably put it back... I'm just writing my justification here.) Gorman 08:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not all companies intend to generate profit. Wikimedia is an example. Powers ^T 14:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but Wikimedia is typically referred to specifically as a "not-for-profit organization" rather than as a company. GreenReaper 04:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]