Forum:SH:Fan notability policy

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. —spookywillowwtalk 00:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH:Fan notability policy

So, regarding Wookieepedia:Notability of fan projects. Most of us will be familiar with the recent TC forum of a particularly notable fan. It was mentioned a few times that we might seek to tweak the policy in the aftermath, so we don't run into the issue again by solving the underlying rule issue. The policy currently includes a clause:

"Mainstream recognition. Fan-related subjects that receive extensive and, most importantly, mainstream media recognition may be suitable for an article on Wookieepedia. Note that this is the most difficult form of recognition to substantiate. Media coverage must be both substantial (in number and size) and from a major mainstream outlet that is not specifically devoted to Star Wars news, including but not limited to news media, entertainment trades, or entertainment websites. Any single mention or a few mentions from a mainstream media outlet(s) does not automatically qualify."

Which—caused a bit of an issue. I wanted to formally bring up the SH on changing the above/s first sentence to add "or real-world-individuals":

"Fan-related subjects or real-world individuals that receive extensive and, most importantly, mainstream media recognition…"

Because, I do agree that individuals that receive the aforementioned, very heavy level of public recognition are notable. But I also believe that we should seek to close policy loopholes as we find them, because in the end, policies really shouldn't be enforced selectively so it's better to just close the gap.

Some other things to consider:

  • Whether Wookieepedia should add a formal clause pointing to contact@wookieepedia.com for the family of an individual who has passed away to request the deletion of an article, especially in cases in which the individual wasn't mentioned in offical SW sources and only in offsite media coverage of a varying degree.
  • Whether we should by default avoid having articles on individuals who were minors when they passed away unless their family consents. Especially applicable in cases in which the individual in question was not mentioned in official SW sources and only in nonlicensed media coverage.—spookywillowwtalk 03:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Towed the primary change discussed in the SH to CT here for the fan notability wording tweak. The other changes discussed below—as they have the potential to apply to not just fans—would probably end up affecting a few policies. Am going to bench that for now and bring it up in a future SH this year to better iron out some parameters.—spookywillowwtalk 23:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I would agree with adding the phrase "real-world individuals", but I'm not so keen on letting people request the deletion of their own or family member's articles. If a fan receives extensive, mainstream media coverage, we should cover it, whether they approve or not. ThrawnChiss7 Mitth symbol Assembly Cupola 03:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm curious about the request article deletion. I agree with it whole-heartly but I wonder if we should have the option for any real-world individual. I also wonder if the child rule should apply to Star Wars individuals. Like Joselyn from Star Wars Full Circle. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 04:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
    • Tbh I think it's fine to have articles for children who are involved in official Star Wars work (like Joselyn), as long as we're careful about privacy and such. Rsand 30 (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
      • It would definitely be a good idea to extend this to any real-world individual. Just because their information is out there does not mean they automatically want it documented. If someone wants their information unlisted, then that is their right. —SnowedLightning (they/them) 03:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks for doing this Spooky, and sorry for the additional work ^^. The addendum seems fine to me. I'd be cautious with the first proposed idea because: 1) potential impersonation: how do we know we are really dealing with family members? kinda hard to deal with since we're talking about individuals (said family members) who are most likely non-public, 2) how can we know the will of the family really align with what the deceased would have wanted? Yes, that's kind a weird question, but bear with me, it's colored by personal experiences, as family wishes don't always align with what the deceased would have wanted when still alive, unfortunately (unless the individual is a minor, since my guess is that legally, the family as all right in that regard). That's a lot of grey area in my opinion, but also I'm open to an expanded discussion about partial removal of content (pictures, life info, social media accounts, etc.) for real-life individuals articles in general (with the exception of pure crediting information [except for the issue of dead naming, of course], so never a full article removal for people who worked on SW), at the request of said individual them-self. For the second idea, yeah, I would agree. I would even say that because of the previous consideration about how to properly reach out to parents, especially when they are grieving the loss of a minor, it feels that it should be best to refrain altogether to even try, to preserve the emotions of all potential parties involved, may it be the parent or the admins who would have to deal with such a hard topic. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 18:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
    • I had the idea of "trimming" after I made my post. Literally just stick to the facts provided by SW sources. This should definitely be implemented in my opinion. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 23:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
    • Can second this; listing only their public-facing credits still can balance the need to have a complete encyclopedia while also respecting if people don't want a photo or their date of birth onsite etc.—spookywillowwtalk 01:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Definitely a good gap to close. I would say we keep it as simple as possible, and not bogged down with details about how to reach out. We do already have info about how to contact us available elsewhere, and realistically someone trying to reach out isn't going to the individual policy pages to find that. Per Dani as well, we should stick with Star Wars specific details. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 21:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
    • Given that someone may not entirely know the contact pages exist, it wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea just to place "contact us here" and be done with it. You don't need tons of details on how to reach Wookieepedia, just a simple message would do. —SnowedLightning (they/them) 03:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
      • The point is that someone seeking to contact Wookieepedia is going to look for a contact page, not a "Policy about fan notability" page. Asithol (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
        • I guess we could potentially add a sentence somewhere on Wookieepedia:Contact saying something like "For a Star Wars creator reaching out about their own page on Wookieepedia, please reach out via the social media handles below or email us."—spookywillowwtalk 20:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)