Forum:CT:Fanon go Boom

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Fanon go Boom

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, this page's talk page or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus for outright ban of fanon, otherwise inconclusive —Silly Dan _(talk) 02:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I see fanon long, on user pages too. I see them boom, for you and you. And I think to myself...what a useless user...hmm, yes...I think to myself...let's ban the sucka.

Seriously though, let's get rid of Fanon wholsale. The rationale behind this harkens back to Jerry Seinfeld when he was developing the aptly named Seinfeld. He wanted all the episodes to start with "The", so the writers would have to come up with an easy simple name, and would spend more time on the actual episode than the title. Same goes here. We still have people tweaking their fanon more than they contribute. Tchah! What's the point? There's a whole Wiki full of flashing sigs and tripped out formatting that they could use. No one here actually reads it, do they? Get it out of here, I say, so as to get people to focus more on the task at hand, and less on their Gary Stus and their Mary Sues and their W. G. Graces.

Support

I should think so. .... 23:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Redemption^Talk 23:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
BE GONE! -- Ozzel 23:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Stake black ^msg 23:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Lord Hydronium 01:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Havac 02:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Die! >:-D--Lord Oblivion^{Sith holocron} 02:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
If you want to write fanon, go to the fanon wiki. It's there for a reason. StarNeptune^{Talk to me!} 23:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Imp 23:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the limits on userpage edits meet our goals sufficiently at this time. If it turns out they don't, we can revisit this later. jSarek 23:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
DarthMRN 00:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
No! Don't we have a rule saying that you need a minimum number of article edits? Chack Jadson 00:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Per jsarek. We don't want to become a funless, dead, empty husk of a Wiki. Gonk ^(Gonk!) 01:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
User page fan fiction is the most useless thing on this wiki next to image edit wars, ridiculously specific userboxes, and questions over whether Grand Admiral Thrawn could beat Boba Fett in backgammon (best two out of three). Having said that, an absolute ban on the practice is probably going too far. —Silly Dan _(talk) 01:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Grand Admiral Thrawn would win, that's all I'm saying. :-P Sorry, couldn't resist! Atarumaster88 14:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Per jSarek's and Gonk's comments above, and per DarthMRN's comment below. Adamwankenobi 01:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I loathe the existence of any fanon and never read it. But it doesn't hurt anything. Even the things that we put limitations on didn't hurt anything, they just weren't constructive enough to the wiki to put up with the annoyance of people making 19000 edits and spamming recent changes. Enforce the current rules, but leave them alone unless this becomes a problem. Wildyoda 02:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Ban is too far, but we need to make an example of a previous offender and post it in What Wookieepedia is Not. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Jedimca0 ^{(Do or Do Not, There is No Try)} 08:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Boo on instruction creep. We're not exactly being overrun with screaming fanonists, and the Super Happy Friendly Fun Userpage Project keeps this limited, imo. Have a Super Happy Friendly Fun Day! Atarumaster88 14:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Unit 8311 14:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I think users should be allowed to put a limited amount of fanon. Otherwise, I'm voting support.--Windu223 19:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Already taken care of enough. QuentinGeorge 01:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Jedipilot94 22:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong support for a harsher user page policy, but this is pushing things a bit too far. Evir Daal 07:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
—Xwing328^(Talk) 01:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Jasca Ducato 22:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Comedic Declaration: Canon is published fanon. We should leave it just in case we ban someone who will then go on to become a famed Star Wars author. Karohalva 22:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Per jSarek. -- SFH 05:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
*shrug* --Azizlight 13:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Only where the fanon is excesive. Bigger things to deal with.. -Fnlayson 02:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

I don't like the edit number rule, because percentages don't mean anything if you do 90% of something as one big edit, like I do. That said, I don't think fanon bios need to be be completely obliterated, so how about a total word limit? ~~Say 600?~~ CooperTFN 02:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

2000 Character limit

CooperTFN 02:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- What about, say, 2000 characters, a la WTS? .... 02:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Why should regular users care if another user has a 600-word or a million-word fanon bio, if it only spams Recent Changes once? jSarek 02:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  - Well, exactly. If it's there, it's a distraction. .... 03:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    - It's not about spamming Recent Changes, it's about how much time the user spends on it instead of on actual improvements. They could spent an entire day on one edit just as easily as on hundreds of tiny ones. And 2000 characters sounds good - it's like an inverse WTS! CooperTFN 05:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
      - So they spend exactly as much time writing their fanfic for SWFanon instead. jSarek 08:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
        If they're going to spend that much time, they're not contributing anyway. Best to have them not contribute somewhere else. - Lord Hydronium 08:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
        How might one figure out how many characters are on a page? Chack Jadson 19:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
        You'd have to put it into Word to check for sure, I believe, but it tends to be around 350 words, so it's more like a flexible word limit. CooperTFN 18:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

While I'm not a userpage fanon writer myself, I can imagine how people who spend every friggin waking hour at this site would like some variation from the normal editing, and to make their personal domain a little more shiny. All work and no play doesn't work elsewhere. There is no reason to think that it will here. It's like having a signature and an avatar on a forum. And the Internet isn't running out of space. DarthMRN 00:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're not having fun editing, go to the Fanon Wiki. They love it over there. .... 01:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- In fact they like big flashing signatures to the degree nearly everyone has one. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  - If we had fanon banned, userpages would be VERY boring...Unit 8311 14:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    - Correction: If we had fanon banned, userpages would actually be useful. Havac 17:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
      - I agree with Havac. People, no one reads your fanon bios! Stake black ^msg 18:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Just what could possibly be so bad about users putting a link on their page that says "Check out my fanfic at Fanon Wiki!"? That makes so much more sense than allowing fanon, but only one page, and only if they work on it this much in proportion to the rest of their editing, etc. Why not put it where it belongs and then not have to worry about it? -- Ozzel 19:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- 'No one reads your fanon bios'? Sorry, but I read fanon bios, and I know that some people have read mine. And besides, what's wrong with a little bit of fanon here and there? I disagree with users commiting too much edits to it, but as far as I'm concerned it's just a bit of harmless fun. It's better than vandalism, anyway. Unit 8311 20:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  - Since contributing is voluntary, I expect that users who edit does so because they want to. Therefore I don't really see how limiting fanon is going to enforce more real editing. People who feel like improving their fanon isn't going to jump at some real work just because fanon is banned, they'll find something else to do. It's like saying that banning spare time activities will encourage people to work more. If anything, the lack of variation would serve as a deterrent to the actual work. I don't buy this argument at all. DarthMRN 20:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    - I agree. Good point, DarthMRN. Unit 8311 20:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    - If they aren't going to contribute anyway, they can do it somewhere else. We just don't need to play host to it. - Lord Hydronium 20:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
      - If a user does nothing but edit their fanon, then I agree: Ban them into little pieces and blast them to oblivion. But we aren't discussing those kinds of users, are we. If a modicum of improvement can be bought at the price of a buttload of fanon, I still don't see that as a bad bargain. AFAIK a fanon a billion words long isn't going to affect the rest of the pedia in the slightest, so I don't really see any good arguments for this proposal. DarthMRN 21:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
        Recent. Changes. Spam. -- Ozzel 21:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
        Elaborate? I'm no recent changes patroller, but from what I can see one page of recent changes don't last for more than a few minutes before being completely replaced anyway. Unless you can offer some insight to the contrary I'd call you delusional to think banning fanon will make any sort of meaningful difference. DarthMRN 23:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
        This thing is one of the most edited pages on Wookieepedia. .... 23:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
IMHO, "Recent changes spamming" by and large, on the list of things wrong with the Wookiee, ranks pretty far down. You see a user working on some subpage, you ignore it. Unless it's totally out of control (and thereby falling under the domain of a very Super Friendly Happy group of people), it's not a huge deal. Atarumaster88 01:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should define "[e]xcessively large fanon projects" a little better, but that's all we need. Evir Daal 07:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm still failing to see why keeping fanon here is a positive thing. Forget, for a moment, that we allow this at all. Now, say someone starts a thread saying we should start allowing fanon. How would it go over? Not well, I would think. Is allowing fanon here really a better alternative than just having users link to their pages on Fanon Wiki? What positive things is fanon adding to Wookieepedia, and why are we better off having it than not? -- Ozzel 02:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- And what negative things does fanon add to Wookieepedia? Hmm? Unit 8311 11:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  - Pro: Motivational/recreative effect of sorts.

Con: "clutters up" Recent changes page.

Seems to be a pretty clear-cut case to me. And the problem with Ozzel's hypothetical question is that it doesn't factor in the positive effect fanon on userpages has for many users. If we didn't have it to begin with, we wouldn't have known how many people would enjoy it, so of course it wouldn't have been voted through. An argument dependent upon our collective ignorance doesn't do much good. DarthMRN 12:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Those who worry about "clogging recent changes" should note that when you check recent changes, you can select which namespace to check or ignore. Fanon in the "User:" namespace is easily ignored. I also don't think it's possible to stop it entirely: a large fraction of new users who intend to work on articles will start their profile not by saying "My name is Dave, and I'm a dental hygenist and Star Wars fan from Saskatoon", but by saying "I'm Darth Awesome, and I'm a bounty hunter turned Sith lord from the Unknown Regions." How much of that comes from the fact that several users are here just to write fan fiction on their userpages, I'm not sure, but even if our most fanon-enthusiastic users left this wiki, we'd always have someone new come in. Maybe if there were a length limit, we'd have less people missing the point of this wiki, but I think banning it entirely won't work. —Silly Dan _(talk) 15:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- "The positive effect fanon on userpages has for many users"? Who the heck gets a positive effect from it? It's obnoxious and juvenile and only clutters up the page with stuff no one reads but their friends, who could just as easily read it on the fanon wiki. Userpages are to convey important facts about yourself in the context of the Wookiee -- what you know about in the EU, why you like Star Wars, your editing philosophy, a list of contributions, whatever. It's not a social networking site and it's not for telling us about how you made up a character called Darth Haxxorz who is all awesome and evil and went to this one planet once and pwned on these Jedi. Why is that something that belongs on Wookieepedia and not the fanon wiki? I have yet to see that question answered with anything more than, "Hey, I like fanon!" Well, like it on the fanon wiki! Havac 18:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  - Who? The writers do. It gives them diversity from other editing tasks, that might after a while seem like chores. Chores they want to do, but chores nontheless. Obnoxious and juvenile? Maybe. But if it matters to their writers, and contributes to their continued happiness with staying and contributing further, why is it a problem? If only their friends ever see it, then what do you care? And FYI, Wookieepedia is, within certain boundaries, what the majority of its users want it to be. You have no place claiming what Wookieepedia is not, unless it is already featured in WP:NOT. In short, why are you bothered by something that according to your own words is noticed by no one? DarthMRN 19:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    - If anyone wants to take a "break from chores" then they can take their steaming pile of shit over to the Star Wars fanon wiki instead of clogging Recent changes and slowing down our browsers when we need to leave a message on said users talk page. --Redemption^Talk 19:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
      - If they need a break, they can take a break on the fanon wiki. Or do we need to start offering snacks, Halo discussion forums, and porn, too? Because some people might want to take a break doing that. It would sure break up the monotony. And I'm not pulling userpage policy and WP:NOT out of thin air. It's not a social networking site and it's not for user fanon. How about instead of just linking to WP:NOT, you actually read it? "If you wish to put up a weblog, post your fanfiction, or advertise your business, neither your user page nor any other Wookieepedia or Wikia page is the proper place to do so." And there's a distinction between reading and seeing. I certainly don't read it. But I do have to put up with having to see vast tracts of it when I go to a user's page and with looking at the edits made to it in recent changes. The fact that it's not useful to the average user does not mean that it somehow disappears from the universe of the average user. Havac 20:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
        @Redemption: Much smaller chance of getting recognition for their work that way. It's like saying they can go wash their car or watch TV when they are bored of editing. You are clearly not getting it, and I'm at loss for how to explain it. It matters to them that the people of their community, here on Wookieepedia, see their work, and a link to the fanon-wiki (which I suspect many here to look down upon) just doesn't accomplish that. Why do people decorate their homes? Why do people write a fanfic on their userpage? Same stuff. Silly Dan told you how to avoid seeing userpage stuff on the RC page. As for slowing down browsers, that is actually a sound argument, though I leave it to more knowing folks to decide whether this poses the sort of problem you claim. Either way, the cons still outwheigh the pros IMO. Neb is a fanfic writer. Would you want him to spend less time here and more time on the fanon wiki? DarthMRN 20:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
        @Havac: It is still SW, and within the context of this site, a valid community activity, unlike Halo or porn. If all you worry about it the image of Wookieepedia as a honest-to-God encyclopedia, to the exclusion of fandom, that while detracting, serves to strenghten the morale and sense of community of many memebers of the workforce, I must ask: Does looks matter more than substance to you? Regarding WP:NOT, you are right. I didn't read it. I took it for granted that when this many users has fanon on their userpages, and there has just been a major userpage purge, if fanon was against policy, we wouldn't have this discussion to begin with. So if WP:NOT says no, why do we permit fanon at all? What is the point of this discussion?! DarthMRN 20:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
        It's like saying they can go wash their car or watch TV when they are bored of editing. Well...they can. Wouldn't be bothering me and would prevent them from wasting the bandwidth. Why do people decorate their homes? Why do people write a fanfic on their userpage? Same stuff A virtual world and the real world are completely different things. Do I have to go into depth about the whole the Internet is a lifeless, cold machine and isn't real? If you want to play in a virtual world, play Galaxies or something. Neb is a fanfic writer. Would you want him to spend less time here and more time on the fanon wiki? I'm not going to beat around bush so I'm just going to say it...yes. Yes I would. I'd rather not have to put up with his dramatic nonsense. --Redemption^Talk 20:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Could we debate the topic without getting inflammatory and mentioning specific people by name please? If you're not going to change someone else's mind over an issue, it's not worth repeating the same points. Based on what Dan has said, the recent changes spamming is sort of null and void anyway, so it all comes down to personal preference about the site. Atarumaster88 20:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Guys, I think we should have a Star Trek forum. It's not hurting anybody, if you don't like it you don't have to read it, and who cares if it adds nothing and goes against our whole point, people need a break from editing. One that apparently they can't get by going out and doing something in the real world. - Lord Hydronium 21:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- "It is still SW, and within the context of the site, a valid community activity" -- that's exactly what you haven't explained. How is fanfic any more valid than Halo? This isn't a fanfic wiki. What about fanfic makes it more valid of inclusion than Halo discussion or porn, when all those things can be gotten elsewhere? How, exactly, does this improve morale? What about making unread fanfic makes them better contributors? How are they happier to do it here, where it makes other users complain about it, than on the fanon wiki with people who like and appreciate it and do the same thing? This site cannot be all things to all people, and I think that's what you're failing to grasp. Fanon disrupts far more than it unifies, and the simple fact that some people like to do it is not enough to justify its existence when they have another whole damn wiki to play on. Havac 21:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  - Maybe just a sarcastic use of an extreme wasn't the best way of getting across my point, so I'll be more direct. User fan fiction has as little to do with Star Wars or our wiki as Star Trek does. Allowing it is condoning people being distracted from the whole point of this site. So, some of the arguments I've seen:
    - "It lets people relax from editing."
      - Honestly, I don't know where to begin with this. OK, first of all, if you're tired of editing, there are literally (and I do mean literally) a million things to do. How's about getting off the computer for one? If people are tired of editing on the wiki, is giving them a different way of editing on the wiki going to help?
    - "It improves morale."
      - I'll echo Havac here: How? If I need to write about the made-up adventures of my made-up character in a made-up universe to feel better...how is that a good thing? And if people want to feel good about their fan-fiction and get recognition from others, wouldn't the friggin' wiki where that's the whole point be a better place to do it?
    - "It doesn't hurt."
      - First, I'd say it does; editors should come here to edit the wiki. Allowing fanon is basically saying "You don't need to pay attention to the point of the wiki, just have fun!" Even our userpage rules don't cover this; we have a user who has made 56 edits to his userpage and three to the main namespace. He contributes next to nothing to the site. And yet we allow that (it's not enough edits to fall within the userpage rules, you'll note). We say "Who cares about the site? That you feel good is what's important!" If people put half the effort into one article that they do to their own pages...well, we'd see a lot of shitty writing, but we'd also see some much better articles.
      - More importantly, though, whether or not it "hurts" is irrelevant. This isn't what the wiki is for. We don't write about Star Trek, because that's not what the wiki is for. We don't write about Halo, because that's not what the wiki is for. We don't write fan-fiction, because that's not—oh wait, we do write fan-fiction, even though that's not what the wiki is for. Because people want to feel good about their "Darth Awesome" masterpiece and we don't want to hurt their feelings.
  - There's a whole wiki about this. If someone wants to talk or write about Star Trek, we send them to Memory Alpha. If they want to talk or write about Star Wars fanon, we say "Sure, why not?" Both have nothing to do with the point of the wiki, and thus, we shouldn't condone either. - Lord Hydronium 22:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    - Ever heard of forums called Community Chat or Off-Topic or something to that effect? They are there for a reason. We are a community. And as far as community-centric activities go, we are limited to our userpages and the opinions, rants and fanfics we put on them, and small notices on our talk pages. While you make a lot of good points, what it boils down to is this: "This is the SW wiki. It is all about recording Canon. We are a community only in the sense that we collaborate on this project. If you want to be a fan or real community member, go elsewhere". Is this correct? If so, and I think we are stubling upon something important here, why do we have Userpages at all? Why do I care about whether you are a christian, hyperinclusionist, gamer, native spanish speaker, how many edits you have, thinks Rasha Bex is hot etc. etc.? What do these things have to do with the wiki? If community practices has no place here, we should have a rule to ban any info about ourselves except what source material we have, whether we are an admin or not, and if we specialize in any one area of SW knowledge, such as starfleets or the Force. Apart from these details, which can help people know who to talk to when it comes to editing, none of that other info is any more relevant to the improvement of this wiki than the user's fanon biography. Do we want that sort of practice? I know some users swear to the all work and no play philosophy, but I doubt all do. No one is forcing you to write a fanfic if you don't want to. Why force people who want to write it to take it elsewhere? Everything but userpages are devoid of community activity, as is befitting an encyclopedia, but why take it away from its one sanctuary, the userpage, which should be the personal domain of its user, and none of the community's business anyway? And why should some elitist attitude towards fanfics decide what community stuff is permissible on the userpage and what isn't? "Take your rants, personal info, and userboxes elsewhere! Here it is all about the articles! Can't deal with it? Though. Take it to SW.com or the fanon wiki. Here we are bots to a man!" DarthMRN 22:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
      - I'm sorry, I've read all the for arguments and still don't get see your points. Although I'm sure those who support this would say the same, only vice versa. Chack Jadson 22:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
        Ok, think of it as a matter of loyalty, of contentment, of liking being a member of arguably the most knowledgable group of SW fans in the world. The sense of community, of group-ness, is strengthened by having relations with other users. It serves to make people come back, to feel part of something great. It inspires them to contribute, because it is expected of them from the community and because it makes them feel part of something. Having a fanfic doesn't directly aid this, that is not what I am saying. I'm saying that sharing things of yourself, creates familiarity, provokes dialogue between users, puts people behind the usernames, and fianlly, creates a strong community. If there was no community, if any hint of things not related to editing was banned, there is no doubt in my mind that we would have far fewer contributors, and a much laxer level of contributions. Do people work their butts off to earn that WOTM award or those Wookiee-cookies? Hell yeah they do. They enjoy contributing because it earns them recognition among their peers in the community. Community is everything to a site like this. Working as a team towards betterment of Wookieepedia goes above and beyond adding this or that as one in a thousand anonymous fans from around the world. I am saying that even community-related activities that seeingly does nothing for the wiki in themselves, serves to strenghten the sense of community, the desire to come back, the desire to please your fellow users. And that, is way too important for an endeavour like ours to cheapen over details like banwidth, recent changes pages and other nonsense. It doesn't matter what sort of community activity we have on our user pages, as long as it gets us in contact with others, especially others who think or do the same thing, like fanfics. They benefit the continued improvment of Wookieepedia, even if in themselves, these activities has no business on an encylopedia. Am I getting anywhere? DarthMRN 23:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, Lordy-lou. I think that the major point of this is lost on many...there's a whole damn Wiki where you can post your junk. It's a click away. Here, it's a distraction, and people spend more time on it than they do articles and actualy work. And edit count doesn't mean a damn in this context - you can make two massive edits which took you a day to do, or you can do ten tiny edits in articles, 50% of them reverts of your own work, and get away with it. Pfah! As someone said to me the other day...well, kinda said; I'll expand upon it, "Wookieepedia has a toilet. There's no need to bring in a chamber-pot." Thefourdotelipsis 23:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- MRN, I don't write fanfic. I don't put anything on my userpage that's not related to Star Wars and Wookieepedia directly. I have very few talk page edits. And yet, somehow, I'm part of the community, I feel like part of the community, and other people feel like I'm part of the community. You know why? Because I participate in the Senate and CT, I'm an active editor, and I visit on IRC, the part of the Wookieepedia apparatus which is set aside for more general socialization. And that's all it takes. And there are plenty of other users like me. So explain to me why fanfic is necessary to build a community. Is it necessary for some people to feel part of the community? Apparently. But judging by their edits, this is to them a great big MySpace with the ability to edit a couple articles attached. Is there the rare user who does fanfic and contributes strongly and well? Sure. But those are also the people who we probably wouldn't lose if we banned fanfic. They'd just pack that facet of their Wookieepedia experience off to the fanon wiki and be just fine. You know, we could probably get more contributors by setting up a Halo discussion board, too. They'd come and talk Halo and make a few edits, too. But does the added benefit of a few measly, low-quality edits from a couple dozen dilettantes outweigh the cost of setting up a massive tangential support system for those users which clutters up the Wookiee and grates on serious users? MRN, you appear to have convinced yourself that it's good for morale, but I'm not seeing any serious arguments to back up why it's good and worth the cost that we know it has. Look at Hydro's arguments again. Look at when I said that we cannot be all things to all people. And refute those if you can. But until you can explain to me how removing fanfic would kill all traces of community on the Wookiee, how it would undo WookieeCookiees and WOTM, and explain how I and a lot of others can be part of the community without writing fanfic, and show me strong reasoning why we're going to lose a lot of useful users if we ban stories about Darth Awesome-Roxxorz, then all you've got is a repeatedly professed belief that fanfic is "good for morale" and no real arguments to back that up with why it's necessary, and why fanfic isn't beyond the bounds of community when Star Trek boards and Bingo Tuesdays are. Havac 00:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
But then you are missing it completely. It is not neccesary, not at all. But it helps. And the reasons for banning it are so insignificant that removing that help cannot possibly be desirable. You seem to mistake every user worth a damn with being just like yourself (and if I may add, that is a poor trait in an Admin). It is well and good that all you need is the IRC channel, but if every member was like that, there would be no fanfics. They contribute to the whole. But tell you what. If you can get someone with overview of the statistics to vouch for what you are saying, that most fanon-writers do jack for the site, and that those who do will contribute just as much if their fanon is banned, and I might just change my vote on this issue. But I am pretty sure you are looking no further than your own nosetip at this. Newsflash: some people enjoy writing fancfics, and discussing them, coordinating them, presenting them to each other, and it serves as a bond between people, regardless of whether they go to the CT or use the IRC or not. Regardless of whether they play it the Havac way. Getting through yet? It builds community, just like the IRC, just like debating on policy. Heck, if I wanted to be a bastard, I could turn the argument around and say we should ban the IRC channel because there is not enough contributions coming from it compared to all the small talk that goes on. And no one has yet given me a good argument for why anything not related to editing should be allowed, when fanfics should be banned solely on account of "not having a place here", and actually gets a vote. DarthMRN 00:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- You missed the part where the IRC is a constructive tool, used for consultation and debate pertaning to Wookieepedia, Breasts, and Alison Doody directly. Fanon does none of these things. Thefourdotelipsis 00:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  - So, it isn't the kind of community playground Havac claims? Thanks, Fourdot. All the more reason to preserve the last sanctuary, then. DarthMRN 01:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    - Sure, it's a community playground. You can socialise and have fun...whilst being constructive. My question is, if you're not having fun editing Wookieepedia constructively...what the hell are you doing here? Thefourdotelipsis 01:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You asking me in particular, or just generally? If it is the latter, because there is a gray area in between. It must be possible to have fun contributing, and still get sick of it once in a while, and require some downtime doing completely useless stuff for the benefit of your homies. You of all people, with the totally useless but very community-building Wookiee-cast should understand this better than most. DarthMRN 01:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Alright. You want a list of users who contribute shit? Note this is just the very tip of the iceberg... --Redemption^Talk 01:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
What does a tip of the iceberg list help anything? I just want someone who usually keeps track of the stats to come in here and tell me that, yeah, Havac has a point. Allowing fanon on userpages by and large spawns nothing but tons and tons of users who make a fanfic and leave. If that is the case, then sure, make the policy and ban the lot of them. But to fair, the Internet doesn't run out of space. Even if they contribute once and make a fanfic longer than the EU combined, that is still progress. This is assuming Havac's view represents reality and isn't just some elitist nose-blow at something they find to be more juvenile than other pieces of useless userpage content. DarthMRN 01:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Wookiee-Cast gives Wookieepedia news. Therefore not useless. Thefourdotelipsis 01:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  - Statistics? OK, let's take a look. Here's a list of our top 49 active contributors. Kuralyov: no fanfic. Jack Nebulax: fanfic, though he's moved his fanon bio to the fanon wiki. Whistler: droid, but still, no fanfic. Borsk Fey'lya: No fanfic. Riffsyphon1024: no fanfic. SFH: no fanfic. Ozzel: no fanfic. VT-16: no fanfic. Eyrezer: no fanfic. Silly Dan: no fanfic, though his actual bio mocks fanfic style. Azizlight: no fanfic. I need a name: no fanfic. SparqMan: no fanfic. Adamwankenobi: no fanfic. LtNOWIS: no fanfic. R2-D2: droid, no fanfic. MoffRebus: no fanfic. Xwing328: no fanfic. Imperialles: no fanfic. Volemlock: no fanfic. QuentinGeorge: no fanfic. StarNeptune: No fanfic. TopAce: Two line of silly fanon. Green tentacle: no fanfic. Enochf: no fanfic. Havac: no fanfic. Sikon: no fanfic. Jaymach: no fanfic. Sentry: no fanfic. Starkeiller: no fanfic. Cull Tremayne: no fanfic. KEJ: no fanfic. Cutch: no fanfic. Lord Hydronium: no fanfic. jSarek: no fanfic. Bly1993: no fanfic. Herbsewell: something which appears to be about six lines of fanfic. Thefourdotelipsis: no fanfic. JMAS: no fanfic. Cato Neimoidia: no fanfic. Jedi Wolf: no fanfic. Tinwe: no fanfic. Atarumaster88: no fanfic. MyNz: no fanfic. McEwok: no fanfic. RushinSundaws: no fanfic. Rune Haako: no fanfic. Darth Culator: no fanfic. Jasca Ducato: fanfic. So that gives us, out of 49 active contributing users, four writers of fanfic, two of which keep it below six lines and wouldn't appear to be too attached to it, and the other two of which are active on the fanon wiki already and shouldn't have any difficulty switching it over and linking to it with a note saying, "Come look at my cool fanfic over here!" So by those statistics, every single other fanficcer is either inactive or has under approximately 2500 edits, which isn't an insurmountably huge amount. You think this is self-centric? No, it's looking at who is doing the work. Havac 02:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    - Actually, that just looks like indication that our most valuable members look down upon fanfics, lending credibility to my theory that this proposal is just an excuse to ban something undesirable on grounds that by rights should compel us to remove most userpage content altogheter. You do prove one thing, though. The continued improvement of Wookieepedia isn't dependent upon fanfics. But then, nobody claimed it was either. Im sure the rest of the community contributes with a tiny, insignificant something once in a while. The question then becomes if any of their continued contributions are affected by their ability to write fanon or not. But guess what? That doesn't really matter either. For unless there are clear signals to show that allowing fanon on userpages is exploited to an alarming degree by newcomers and smalltimers, those few or many who actually bond through writing fanon still gain this pedia more than they otherwise would. I'm not about to give up something that might be a very valuable asset to the community over something as trivial as elitist arrogance. You start a poll suggesting we remove everything from userpages that isn't directly contributing to the editing process, and maybe I'll believe the support-side is actually looking out for the best of Wookieepedia. Peace out. DarthMRN 03:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
      - MRN, your argument doesn't make sense to me, and frankly it just comes off like pure contrariness. WP:NOT specifically states that your userpage is not for fanfic. The burden is on those who defend it to prove why this policy should continue to be unenforced. As Ozzel rightfully pointed out, it certainly wouldn't pass if we proposed out of the blue to add it. Why should we keep it simply out of inertia? As for my position on removing everything from userpages that doesn't directly contribute to editing, there is no other phenomenon as widespread, time-consuming, and pointless as userpage fanfic. Lists of funny words, small rants about the NJO, whatever else -- those aren't getting constantly updated and added to. They're not, that I've seen, the focus of anyone's contributions here. And when they do become a focus, we already have a policy in place that locks those pages until people get their edit ratios back in order and their priorities in line. Fanfic, however, is a much larger distraction, and Redemption has already posted a list of users who do little more than fanon, and I assure you that they are only a few of many. It's nothing but a distraction from the purpose of this wiki. So, please, stop accusing the support side of not looking out for the best interests of Wookieepedia. I'm getting very sick of your accusations of elitism. I'm being a realist here -- fanfic is exploited by undercontributors and distracts from the purpose of the wiki. If I call it amateurish, it's because, by any definition of the word, it is. It's not necessarily a knock on the people writing it. It's just the truth. All the fanfic I've seen on here has been amateurish, Mary Sueish stuff, and I've yet to see more than a handful of genuinely contributing users who are into the stuff. I speak not from elitism but from experience. Havac 05:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
        Yeah, about that, why is this up for debate in the first place if WP:NOT clearly states that fanon is a no go? I recall seeing on the Admin noticeboard something about them being unwilling to act upon it, but seriously, if userpage fanon is against policy but simply suffers from lax enforcement, this topic should have been locked or ended a long time ago. In stead we have admins who vote in favour of keeping it. Splain, please. DarthMRN 06:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
That is an interesting correlation between top users and fanfic, but I must mention that even I have one subpage with fanon which I have since moved to the Fanon Wiki and expanded on ideas greatly. Yes even the co-founder has an Achilles Heel but I enjoy being creative when I cannot add anything of substance to Wookieepedia. I do agree however that those users on here in the long list above that have fanon names and contribute nearly nothing new need some reprimand. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Don't ask me to explain their votes, MRN. Ask them. Because honestly, I don't know why. I'd be as happy as you to hear their reasoning. And Riff, you're actually proving my point. You're a user who had fanon and moved it to the fanon wiki without any perceptible decrease in enjoyment of Wookieepedia or lowering of contributions. You're showing that the fanon wiki works as a fanon outlet as much as or more than Wookieepedia, and users shouldn't worry about moving their stuff over. Havac 07:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  - I would just like to note that this subject has been discussed to death and every time the consensus has been that fanon userpages are annoying, but not harmful. DarthMRN should not have to defend a policy that has been supported by a consensus that has lasted half a dozen discussion threads. On multiple occassions, the topic has been debated and it has been agreed that WP:NOT should only be enforced if users spend all of their time writing fanon. So, the burden of proof should rest on those wish to change policy, and honestly, I think it will be difficult to prove that fanon is in any way damaging.
    For better or worse, user pages are intended to be a place where users are allowed to creatively express themselves to some degree. I personally think fanon and other such things should be taken elsewhere, but I also think that it is dertirmental to keep creating ever more draconian user page guidlines for no apparent reason. Bah, whatever, feel free to ignore me. I am just tying up some loose ends at the moment. When I am finished, I will be gone for good.–Sentry^Talk 07:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    - I think we should end this inane discussion. It's just leading to flaming and insults and anyway the pro-fanon votes are outweighing the anti-fanon. Who cares if some users write fanon? Does it honestly have any effect on this Wiki? Unit 8311 12:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
      - I do. And yes. -- Ozzel 18:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
        Oh, for heaven's sake! Are people who write fanon deliberately trying to have a negative effect on this Wiki? Is fanon going to bring about the end of the world? Just take a look at the votes. All the killjoys who want fanon banned for whatever strange reason are currently being outvoted. Is some fanon really going to have a such a massive effect on your life? Live and let live, for crying out loud! Unit 8311 19:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
        Does it have to be deliberate to be negative? Has anyone said it would end the world? Does voting no for something mean that person hates joy? Are numbers of votes a measure of objective rightness on an issue? Is making people move their fanon to the fanon wiki going to have such a massive effect on your life? And why does voting to ban something constitute a violation of the sacred principle of live and let live on a wiki that already has numerous policies in place for good reason? Havac 22:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
        When you were young, and your heart was an open book, you used to say "live and let live." (You know you did, you know you did, you know you did.) But if this ever-changing world in which we live in makes you give in and cry... say "live and let die." -- Ozzel 22:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"Emperor's Ghost!" squeaked the Chadra-fan. As linguistics professor at the Aquaris University of Excessive Intellect she was entitled to such outbursts. "This is STILL being talked about? How can such an issue be continued without resolve?" Her voice was now shrill with indignation. "I urge immediate cessation until a more balanced alternative is made!" Unfortunately for the diminutive alien, Darth Vader was wearied of her rant. His subsequent crushing of her wind-pipe brought the matter to a well deserved end... Karohalva 03:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify what was said above, "Eyrezer: no fanfic." I actually have a fancfic page - you should go read it! ;o) --Eyrezer 02:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.