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 user page fan fiction is limited to 250 words or less. - Lord Hydronium 22:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, Forum:CT Archive/Disallowing Fanon - Yes or no. Period. has failed to tighten the policy on putting fanon/fan fiction/imaginary Star Wars bios on user pages. I personally don't like elaborate user page fanfic very much at all: this is not what we're here for.
Problem is, we continually get new users come by calling themselves "Darth Something" or "Mandalorian Supertrooper" or something, who immediately begin by talking about their Star Wars persona. Some of them actually contribute meaningfully to articles, and need only be reminded that this isn't the place for elaborate fanfic. Others don't contribute to articles: these users will eventually be blocked or have their userpages locked according to the existing policies, or will simply wander off after getting little or no feedback on their awesome character.
As I see it, a complete ban on userpage fanfic would not help welcome new users and get them contributing. It would also block people who aren't being very disruptive, which strikes me as unnecessary.
So, here's my proposal to vote on: Fan fiction on user pages must be limited to 250 words or less. 250 words is more than enough to establish that you like to pretend to be the most awesome Sith Lord who was ever awesome (or whatever), provide a link to the fanon wiki or some other site, and make an end to it.
This proposal would not affect the existing user page policies, so you'd still be allowed to put your fanfic on your main user page or on a subpage, write more than 250 words about your actual real-world life and opinions, (over-)illustrate your fanon with three user images, etc. In particular, Wookieepedia:User page and profile policy's section on "Excessive user page edits" would apply, possibly as amended by Forum:Editcount Percentage Policy Proposal, so you can't polish your 250 word fanfic endlessly.
Votes and comments below. This discussion will be restricted to registered users, who are the only ones with user pages anyway. —Silly Dan (talk) 01:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, restrict to 250 words of fanon
- —Silly Dan (talk) 01:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's better than what we have. Thefourdotelipsis 02:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Redemption
(Talk) 02:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC) - Onrush of opponents? Oh, they're comin' alright. Cull Tremayne 02:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Since we can't just outlaw the crap.... supergeeky1
The Cantina 01:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC) - —Graestan
(This party's over) 04:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC) - Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 09:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- —Xwing328(Talk) 20:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- So (if it's your thing) you can introduce the character/event/whatever, then provide a link for more reading. Makes everyone happy. Or at least it should. Also, per SD's blocking policy below. Jorrel
Fraajic 20:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC) - --Eyrezer 22:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- ...for now. - Lord Hydronium 22:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Green Tentacle (Talk) 13:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- In my experience most people who write fanon are not productive to the encyclopaedia (and yes, that is what is is) whatsoever. The current policy is pathetic (all a fanoneer has to do is stick some italics and [[s into an article and they can't be touched), and though I'd prefer a no-fanon policy, this is the best. -- AdmirableAckbar [Talk] 13:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- This seems reasonable, give or take a few (i.e. not more than used in this vote) words. Atarumaster88 (Talk page) 05:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Anything that ends this damn issue soon. Chack Jadson (Talk) 15:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- I still don't like saying "This is okay if you only do it a little bit" when it doesn't need to be "okay" at all, but if this is the best we can do, so be it. -- Ozzel 21:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
No, do not change the existing policy
- I've always failed to see the harm that fanon causes us, and I still do. When I started up, my first contribution was basically my userpage, including a (somewhat lengthy) fanfic... which I've also barely touched since. In a way, writing the fanfic wookiee-style was sort of a trial before starting the real editing. Now, while I like my fanon and would like it to stay, even if it's not that good, that's not the point. Which is, as mentioned above, that fanfics are a problem only if you make them one. Seen in another light, they can perhaps even be an asset, since they draw new users. Note that this my vote is not a condonation of the Fandalorians, Sith-Lord-wannabes and whatnots who unfortunately enough are pestering our site with non-productive content. More than once I've voted for legislating against excessive user page editing, be it fanon, talkpage nonsense or whatever. The mistake I believe you're making is equating fanon to this much larger category of excessive, non-productive edits, something that is a huge oversimplification of our situation. Personally I believe it's the time and effort spent on useful or useless endeavours (the latter category of which includes a lot more than just fanon) that should count, not arbitrary word limits or templates. And that's pretty much the system we have now with edits counts. I would really support a tightening up of those standards, but this approach will cause a lot of undue harm and promote little good. Captain Daal 11:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- --Dark Lord Xander (Embrace The Dark Side!) 11:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- For the record: I am not fond of a great amount of personal fanon on this wiki. That is why anything that could be construed as fanon is reduced to two quotes (paraphrased from real-world conversations) and claim in my user-infobox to live on Alpheridies. This is simple and harmless to the wiki (not to mention only 125 words). If someone else wants to have it on their page, that is their choice. As much as I prefer hard rules on things rather than subjectivity (no offense to the admins), I believe that regulating the user pages is instruction creep. In a nutshell: I do not like large amounts of fanon, but I am not in favor of regulating people's individual pages that are not open articles. Master Aban Fiolli (Alpheridies University ComNet) 21:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Jeez. KEJ 15:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Comments
Go ahead and hash out alternative proposals here, if you must, but keep in mind the total ban (a zero-word limit) has been rejected, and unlimited fanon should be somewhere else entirely. —Silly Dan (talk) 01:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Either by brilliant planning or bizarre coincidence, Daal's reply above is exactly 250 words. Just to give people an idea of how big these would be. ;-) -- Ozzel 21:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
What to do with offenders if this passes?
I propose we just lock the user's userpage, and point him at WP:NOT. Further offenses or disruptive behaviour can be treated according to existing Wookieepedia:Blocking policy. —Silly Dan (talk) 01:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- If this passes, I think a more progressive approach should be done. (1) Give people a heads-up warning on the talk page (follow-up by an admin), (2) then lock the userpage, (3) then ban. This gives all users a fair chance to take down the fanon that exceeds this amount. It will become very quickly apparent who is not willing to cooperate. Master Aban Fiolli (Alpheridies University ComNet) 21:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- I like that idea. It's fair, and gives them a chance to shorten their story and then become a valued member of the community. Chack Jadson (Talk) 15:42, 21 October 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.