Forum:CT:Disallowing Fanon - Yes or no. Period.

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Disallowing Fanon - Yes or no. Period.

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was total ban on fanon rejected, with a vote of 27-19 against the proposal, and no votes for 10 days. Further restrictions may be proposed in other threads. —Silly Dan (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the last thread was deliberately derailed by people who wanted to game the system, we're starting over.

It goes like this: Do we want to disallow/ban/outlaw all fanon/fanfic on Wookieepedia. Yes or no.

There is no third option. There WILL BE NO third option.

Any addition of a third option will be reverted.

(And before anyone goes fear-mongering, this doesn't include silly things like userboxes. Introducing that as a strawman was a disgusting tactic, and the so-called "debater" should be banned. You know who I'm talking about. This is about fanon/fanfic. Period.)

Anyone caught vote-farming will be permanently and irreversibly banned and this is your warning.

It's that simple. Disallow fanon. Yes or no.

No discussion. No "neutral." YES OR NO.

Disallow all fanon

Yes

  1. - Darth Culator (Talk) 21:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. -- AckbarSigdmirableAckbar (It's A Trap!) 21:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. --Goodwood 21:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Havac 21:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 21:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Lord Hydronium 21:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 22:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. Ozzel 22:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  9. Four Dot says yes to no fanon. Or fanfiction, if you want to get semantical. Thefourdotelipsis 23:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  10. Sigh... sorry dudes, but I feel like I gotta vote this option. Carlitos Moff 23:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  11. Just remove it. Cull Tremayne 01:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oh grow up already...--RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 03:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  13. Send them on over to SWFanon. I have faith that interpretation of this rule will be more than fair to parties concerned. And I hate fanon with all the hate in my cold, black heart.—Graestan Jedi Order (This party's over) 05:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
    DarthPraxus 15:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC) (Per Forum: Single issue voters)
  14. Green Tentacle (Talk) 21:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  15. Din's Fire 997 04:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  16. supergeeky1 BobaFett The Cantina 17:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  17. There is a separate Wiki for this kind of thing. Most fanon articles are badly-written and have a lot of spelling mistakes, so overall, they lower Wookieepedia's level of quality. - TopAce (Talk) 20:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  18. We should be actively promoting other Wikia wiki's, and asking people who want to write fanon to do so at the proper place, the SWFanon wiki. If they want to link to the SWFanon wiki from their userpage, then let them...but we should be trying to further Wikia's other projects rather than having people make so many useless edits here. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 08:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  19. Muuuuuurgh 08:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No

  1. I need a name (Complain here) 22:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. No. Now let's drop it. Chack Jadson Talk 22:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Still like my word-count idea better than a total ban, even though my ability to care either way is waning. —Silly Dan (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. I thought this finished ages ago --Dark Lord Xander (Embrace The Dark Side!)Neo-Crusader emblem 23:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. I refuse to allow my intense personal distaste for fanon to lead us down the path of dictating what people do with their userpages. Meaning I'm not yet convinced there's a problem here that our edit count policy can't handle. Gonk (Gonk!) 02:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Per Gonk. --Imperialles 02:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. It's not the fanon that is the problem, it's the users. QuentinGeorge 02:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. For the love of Kyle! This issue is like a karking zombie, it just won't die. I don't particularly care about, read, or desire to see fanon on Wookieepedia, but (per Gonk), there's no smoking gun, axis of evil, clear and present danger, or any other clichéd analogy that you may care to throw out there to prove that it is detrimental to Wookieepedia. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 04:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  9. The users that post excessive amounts of fanon are the problem, not the fanon. We already have good rules. Although a word limit wouldn't hurt, we do not need to ban all fanon. The excessive amounts of fanon are just a symptom, block the user who posts it and your problem is solved. The current policy allows you to do just that, it only takes a bit of time to track down the users who violate that policy. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 08:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  10. Jeez! KEJ 10:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  11. A better idea would be a K size limit on user pages that includes images and text, but I'm not sure MediaWiki can handle that. --SparqMan Talk 16:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  12. Per Gonk via Ataru. Give it a rest. Wildyoda 20:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  13. Per Ataru. Haven't we had enough of this? Hobbes15(Tiger Headquarters) 21:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  14. LtNOWIS 05:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  15. Sigh...Unit 8311 07:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  16. Pro-censorship crowd just won't stop. We've run the same arguments on, what, half a dozen CTs? The next time they win a vote on the topic will be the first. But they just won't give it a rest till we're tired enough to comply. It's not democratic procedure, it's attritional warfare. Commander Daal Imperial Emblem 09:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  17. No. Just no. -- SFH 16:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  18. After making my vote in the original thread, I've seen other instances of problematic userpage/user talk page abuse that wouldn't be affected at all by this. We need something both less draconian than complete and total fanon bans (which WOULD have affected fanon userboxes - that was in no way a straw man), and more comprehensive than rules which only target fanon. jSarek 00:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  19. Jasca Ducato Sith Council 13:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  20. OH MY G*NK, THE EMPIRES COMING BACK! Aybfreak 22:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  21. Per Gonk. Jedipilot94 *Fo-Shizzle* 22:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  22. Per Gonkg and Jedimca0. --Craven 10:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  23. Fanon includes all Star Wars falsehoods, not just biographies, of which there is a great deal on all userpages. Until the target is made more precise I vote no. Put a tight word limit (100+ words?) on the bios and continue to forbid fanfiction. Continue our demand that lengthier versions redirect to Swfanon. Fanon itself is too broad a topic. I would that userpages held more information on the user -- information on what and where their talents and knowledge lie. Karohalva 15:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  24. Eniad (Boring conversation anyway.) 07:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  25. Alice in Chains. --SoT Holonet of the Hand 10:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  26. Per Gonk. Master Aban Fiolli (Alpheridies University ComNet) NR Seal 19:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  27. (Comment censored: Users not allowed to comment on this vote.) —Xwing328(Talk) 23:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • DISALLOW FANON/FANFIC. This is Wookipedia, it's about facts and debating things that are up in the air to conclude WHAT is fact. Fan Fiction totally destroys the purpose of the website. People come here for the facts and to learn about what really happened. If it isn't canon, it should'nt be here. If it is, people MUST BE RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH TO DISTINGUISH IT IN THEIR EDITING. Most articles I have seen it in have been pretty clear about that. I am also in favor of a section that takes common myths fan/fic of the canon and puts them to rest as fanon. That way people know when they have read something that is a lie or didn't necessarily happen.
  • Oh, sorry. Then, "Yes". Stricken again for the same reason. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 04:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)