Forum:CT:Fanon limits - revised proposal

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Fanon limits - revised proposal


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The result of the debate was: No clear consensus (10/12): should be superseded by Forum:Word count limit on fanon. —Xwing328(Talk) 22:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

In light of the overwhelming craziness of the Fanon go Boom CT, I thought I'd revisit my own suggestion in a new setting, absent the enormous heated debate, and four-dot's, let's say...slightly roughshod handling of the matter. It's become clear that many of you will not stand for a complete ban on user page fanon, and for a lot of understandable reasons, but looking at things like this, can't we agree that some kind of regulation might be helpful? As I stated on the original fanon page, I don't believe edit percentage rules help with the real issue here - the Recent Changes page may be cleaned up a bit, but it still allows otherwise productive users to waste as much time as they want on something that benefits no one - including them. I think that a length limit, in conjunction with the edit percentage limit, would be a reasonable compromise. I'd also appreciate it if we can keep comments on this page down to things specifically related to the idea of word limits; if you want to write a huge treatise for or against fanon in general, go join the melee on the other page. CooperTFN 01:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Word limit on fanon bios - length TBD

  1. CooperTFN 01:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Yes, some limit on the amount. -Fnlayson 02:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Next best thing. - Lord Hydronium 03:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. SFH 03:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Fanon go partially boom. Havac 03:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. Nutbush Fanon Limits. For now. Thefourdotelipsis 03:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. It should satisfy both sides, which considering past consensus, is generous. DarthMRN 09:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. This user supports the partial extermination of fanon. --tzzA 22:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  10. RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 19:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No limit on fanon bios - the current system is fine

  1. If they're not spamming Recent Changes with constant updates to their fanon, or creating a shadow wiki in the form of a bunch of subpages, I just don't see the harm. jSarek 03:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. I think if it's done well, or even a copy of their character from SWFanon and in the words of jSarek as long as they aren't spamming it, I think that it's pointless to supress ones own imagination.N.Y.N.E.Comlink 03:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. "[I]t still allows otherwise productive users to waste as much time as they want on something that benefits no one - including them." I'm gonna have to say no to this collectivist view, people do know what's good for them. Evir Daal 09:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Though I think fanon biographies are a plain waste of time and sometimes even stupid, are we going too far. We just had that Happy Fun Super Friendly day which I hoped should have put stuff right. Be aware that not all people can afford the EU novels, source books, essential guides, games, etc. I personally think that campaigning for a Free Tibet or Kurdistan, fighting religious extremism, doing relief work following a major disaster or doing a tour of duty as an aid worker in Third World is far better than worrying about fanon user pages. Zainal 09:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    • You know what it's also better than? Editing a Star Wars wiki. Yet you still seem to find time to do that. It's also better than buying groceries at the store this week. You probably shouldn't do that, either. It's also better than voting against banning fanon. The existence of bigger fish to fry is not a valid argument against doing something else while it's on the table. Unless you expect every single person on the face of the earth to drop everything and start trying to cure cancer, in which case everything else is pointless. And what the heck does access to EU novels have to do with userpage fanon? Havac 17:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 09:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. {{SUBST:DarthAbsig}} 10:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. I don't mind putting a percentage limit on the number of fanon edits, but a length restriction probably just won't work. Unit 8311 13:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Err... well.... sorry, after Zainal's comment, there simply isn't anything left to be said ;-) KEJ 13:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. Chack Jadson 20:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  10. Instruction creep. - Sikon 08:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  11. Per Sikon. Atarumaster88 01:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  12. Per Sikon and jSarek. How much does someone else's fanon really affect you, Cooper? The simplest fix for this problem is exactly what I do: just don't read it. Wildyoda 16:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    84.210.40.108 19:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I've never read a word of it. I've never seen a "This user thinks Waru is awesome" userbox on this site, either, but that wouldn't stop me from opposing it in a vote. CooperTFN 04:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  • To keep things simple, I'll just do pro- or anti-limits for now. If pro wins, then we can discuss specific numbers. CooperTFN 01:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There hasn't been that much of a spamage of the recent changes page for some time, but it was a serious problem earlier with individuals like Mike Kazz (plus his own egomania) or ridiculously long pages fanon subpages such as Darth Eric. I'd rather not see a repeat something like that. -- SFH 03:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think restrictions should be placed on users who commit most of their editing sessions to fanon, but I don't think it's fair on people who only spend a very small fraction of their editing on fanon. Unit 8311 13:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with you very much, Unit8311, on that issue. A little bit of fanon should be tolerated but not a huge chunk of trash. MyNz 03:55, 3 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.