Forum:CT:Fansite webmasters

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Fansite webmasters

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 was in favor of Imperialles's addition to Notability of fan projects policy —Silly Dan (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Fansite webmasters are currently accepted as "notable fans" on Wookieepedia. But are they really? I think it's time to modify our Notability of fan projects policy to exclude these people. Consider: Does creating and maintaining a website make a person a notable fan?

Note that this would only affect articles on people who are recognized purely because they run fan sites (such as Eric Przybylski). Articles on people like Curtis Saxton would still be kept, because they're recognized for other work.

My proposed addition:

  • Webmasters: If a person is recognized purely for creating and/or maintaining a Star Wars fan site, he is not considered notable enough to warrant his own article.

Please do not add any further options to this consensus track. --Imperialles 15:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In favor of addition

  1. Very much so. --Imperialles 14:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Darth Culator (Talk) 14:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. JMAS 14:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Sorry, Riff and WhiteBoy. (You should make it "he or she" when it becomes policy, though.)—Silly Dan (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • If it becomes policy, I mean. —Silly Dan (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
      • But Dan, Wookieepedia isn't necessarily a website per se, and the fact that it's been deemed noteworthy by other sources (though they reference Wookieepedia, by extension this would mean Chad and Steven) would make them, well...noteworthy.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 14:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Wookieepedia is definitely a website in every sense of the term. And applying Wookieepedia's notability to Riff and WhiteBoy is just plain wrong. --Imperialles 14:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Well, duh. Unit 8311 18:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. About damn time. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. I've long thought we should do it this way. Havac 19:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Yes. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 21:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    This will forestall people insisting they be added. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 21:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Din's Fire 997 00:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  10. Graestan(Talk) 00:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  11. Hobbes(Tiger's Lair) 03:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  12. --Eyrezer 08:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  13. Green Tentacle (Talk) 19:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  14. I think our standards for fansite notability are too inclusive. Webmasters themselves are even less notable. Wildyoda 17:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  15. Next best thing to getting rid of fans entirely. --RedemptionRedemptionusersymbol(Talk) 00:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  16. Per Wildyoda. Gonk (Gonk!) 12:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  17. Destroy. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Against addition

  1. Instruction creep. The CSD and TC options are still available, no? Also, per Riffsyphon1024 below.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 04:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I swear to Kyle, one day I'm going to start a CT to ban the use of the phrase "instruction creep." -- Darth Culator (Talk) 05:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
      • And I bet I know what the response to that will be... -- Ozzel 06:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Goodwood, part of the reason this is on the CT in the first place is because these two TCs suggested it. jSarek 06:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. No thanks. -- Ozzel 06:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Keep that thing away. KEJ 09:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Strong oppose. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 19:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    Changed my mind to a somewhat unenthusiastic vote against this. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 06:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Unenthusiastic support like Ataru. —Xwing328(Talk) 02:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. If there's a chance. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. I really, really want to vote in favor of this, but I cannot help but to think that there are some fansites and creators who might possibly deserve an article in the future if not already. Not sure if it is so, but I'm not quite willing to close the door. Master Aban Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 21:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • If you can't think of a fansite webmaster who deserves an article, that should tell you they are non-notable. If you could think of a fansite webmaster who deserved an article, it would probably be because they had done something else or had been acknowledged somewhere (which would then still allow them an article even with this addition). Wildyoda 04:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Would this mean people who have been acknowledged in official works, like Tracy Duncan (tuckerized as Dunc T'racen) or Wayne Poe (brief cameo as the Atrisian god Wapoe), would still get pages, despite the fact that their main contribution is still their webmaster work? -- Darth Culator (Talk) 14:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • As it would be pointless to support opposition to this proposal, I digress that the articles for Chad and I alter their existing category to Category:Wookieepedia. I will not support any measure however that results in said articles being destroyed because someone thinks that we are being egotistical about having them. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • That category is for pages in the Wookieepedia namespace, so that is not going to happen. --Imperialles 06:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
      • However, those two articles would only be the ones in question appropriate for said category. Look at Wookieepedia itself. Not quite in the Wookieepedia namespace persay. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
        • If we keep those two articles, I think they could stay in the Category:Wookieepedia. If we don't want to keep anything in Category:Fansite webmasters as individual articles, your articles shouldn't be an exception. (Of course, fansite webmasters who are also published Star Wars authors or artists would just have the category removed, so the Curtis Saxton and Leah Mangue articles would be kept. There would be other exceptions.) —Silly Dan (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Can we widen this to video game mod creators? Like, all of them? ...Except Redemption ;) Gonk (Gonk!) 22:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Do we have many of those? If so, why? I don't think they qualify even under the current guidelines. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 05:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Dashus, the head of Team Gizka, was interviewed by a video game magazine about the TSLRP, actually, though the name of the magazine eludes me for the moment.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 06:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Wookieepedia:Notability of fan projects has always said "Fan sites and other fan projects should get one and only one article. If an article on a fansite can be merged with another article, it probably should." There wasn't any objection to that when I drafted that as one of the guidelines for notability: do the people who want fansite webmasters kept want to change that? (I personally look at this situation from a "mergist" perspective, so the articles on Riff and WhiteBoy would be merged into our Wookieepedia article, articles on other webmasters/mod creators/fan club presidents could be merged into the articles on their websites/mods/clubs, etc. I'd even support merging articles on most "tuckerized" fans into the in-universe article bearing their name (see Shawn Valdez for example), to be honest. However, if we want to keep fansite webmaster articles, we should modify the notability policy to allow this.) —Silly Dan (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I would support a merge option, but the way the delete option currently reads seems to entail that the information would be deleted wholesale from the wiki. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 00:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
      • For the sake of consensus, my enthusiasm has waned to the point where I just don't care. Let me say, though, that I feel that a "merge information to website articles" would have been much better received, and that the "Do Not Additional Options" clause is unnecessarily restrictive. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 21:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Alright, I'm off to make an article for Quinlanfan, the founder of Rebelpedia. Any objections? -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 17:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • None, so long as you curse as much as possible and make anti-religious remarks. Oh, and tell everyone that Quinlan Vos wears a cortosis weave. Graestan(Talk) 17:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • If Rebelpedia itself were a notable site, then it might be something to consider . . . but it's not. jSarek 09:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)