Forums > Senate Hall archive > Fanon Limit

As I'm not an offender myself, I thought I would offer a neutral voice on this:


Could we perhaps tone down the phrasing on the above? I understand that it needs to be a clear warning to current violators, but isn't it a bit of an over kill in harshness. I mean these people weren't breaking the rules a few days ago, is there really a need to be that rude due to a recent policy change? Livingston (The Force will be with you. Always.) 11:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

  • ...I don't see how that's rude at all. We're trying to get the point across, as opposed to being limp-wristed and saying "Aw, well, y''s OK, but we're really like you to stop." Thefourdotelipsis 12:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Personally, I don't see what's wrong with it--to the point, like the other templates. Though the paraphrased movie quote doesn't make sense to me. Unit 8311 12:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
      • It actually alters depending on where you place it. If I placed it on my talk page, it would read "Cut the Fanon, Thefourdotelipsis" Thefourdotelipsis 12:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Let me guess, you made it?Livingston (The Force will be with you. Always.) 16:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
      • The administrators present in IRC at the time of the template's creation approved the design and wording. Several tweaks and measures to tone it down were applied, if that means anything to you. Silly Dan and I, for instance, argued that the word "blocked" be substituted for "banned," which had a more negative connotation. We also voiced that we'd like a link to SWFanon be added, so that those warned would not feel that they had no options. The intentions were not negative, I can assure you. Fanon simply has a wide swath of unfavorable trickle-down consequences that a sizable number of users on the wiki would like to avoid.—Graestan(This party's over) 16:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    • ROFLMAO That's the tonned down version? That's hillarious. Well if it was approved it was approved. Nuff said. ^_^ Livingston (The Force will be with you. Always.) 17:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Seems pretty civil to me, actually. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 00:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
        • The only thing, at least to me, that I'm finding harsh is the coloring. The link-blue color on top of the red is, at least for me, causing issues visibly. Also, the "or steps will be taken" seems redundant with the last sentence. Both of these could just be me, however. Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 20:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Personally, I don't like there being a link to SWF, it just seems like another way of kids who spl lik they com from primry skl and have no sense of grammar to get themselves banned when they think SWF is a 'do what-ever the hell you like' site. I'd actually like the link removed. Jasca Ducato Sith Council 20:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
            • Yes, Fanon Wiki Are Serious Business, people! -- Ozzel 20:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
              • Technically, in this case, for all intensive purposes, SWFanon really is the fanon alternative for Wookieepedia. The users who are posting the fanon usually are just looking for an outlet - sending them to the Fanon Wiki provides them that outlet. Once there, if they start violating the Fanon Wiki rules, they can be dealt with there. Besides, we've had {{msg-fanon}} and {{msg-rejection}} for a long, long time with the fanon link; nothing has ever been said about them. Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 20:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
                  • Those templates aren't as widely used as this one, and I had no idea they even existed, but that's beside the point. Almost every single user sent over to SWF from here has been banned for everything from vandalism to consistent failure to abide by the rules. Instead of casting blame, I'd just like the links removed, so that that doesn't keep happening. Jasca Ducato Sith Council 21:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
                    • Star Wars Fanon is not your playground wiki. It's a wiki for writing fanon, therefore, logically, that is where people would go to write fanon, regardless of standard or intelligence. The link should most certainly stay, at least in my opinion. -- AdmirableAckbar [Talk] 21:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
                      • It's more my wiki than yours, as I'm an avid contributor there. I don't want to have to constantly ban users and delete articles because they constantly disobey the rules. All of them say "But Wookieepedia said I could do what I want here" or "I was sent here from Wookieepedia to write fanon" which is fair enough, but when they carry on breaking the rules, it becomes apparent that Wookieepedia sending them to SWF is a bad idea. Jasca Ducato Sith Council 21:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
                        • Good point. Let's keep 'em here. -- Ozzel 21:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I think I can give you two words to sum up the collective opinion of Wookieepedia administration: TOO BAD. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 21:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • (unindent) So, Jasca, you are saying you want us to stop promoting the wiki you claim to care about? Sure, we could do that, but you fail to realize that a lot of your contributors have been referred to you by us (the "good" ones as well as the "bad"). Also, I have not seen any indication that we have told your errant users that they could do whatever they want over at your precious guys give them that impression all by your lonesome. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 21:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Would the fanon wiki admins prefer we remove all links to the fanon wiki in our warning templates and in our policy pages? We could certainly do that — it would make no difference to me one way or the other. —Silly Dan (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I would like to hear the options of all SW Fanon admins on this option, not just Jasca's. Jasca is NOT the SW Fanon wiki. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 21:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
    • That kind of action would require consensus among the people who actually use the templates, which I don't think it would get. Feel free to start a CT, though. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 21:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
    • People who get this and related templates get it because they've written fanon about Star Wars. The Star Wars Fanon Wiki is a wiki whose sole purpose is to be a venue for people who write fanon about Star Wars. Asking us not to send our fanoneers there is as silly a suggestion as requesting of Wikipedia that people writing canon Star Wars articles not be referred to the Wook. If people can't be referred to SWF for doing what that wiki is mandated to exist for, then the wiki itself should be shut down. jSarek 23:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly what you would call a contributor here, but I am an Admin at the SWF Wiki and I saw that someone asked for the opinions of more than one SWF Admin. My opinion is that the link should stay in this template. Wookieepedia is doing nothing wrong by telling people to go to the SWF Wiki to write fanon. What they're doing is a simple thing I like to call "logic". I mean, if Wookieepedia stops telling fanon writers to go to SWF, then in all fairness we need to stop telling people who make all canon articles on SWF to go to Wookieepedia because, in the end, we'd be sending people who dnt no how 2 spll here. I feel like I lost my point somewhere in there, so I'll end this by saying that this SWF Admin says he's fine with the link being there. - Brandon Rhea 01:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm down with whatever a majority of SWFanon admins say on the matter; with no consensus resulting in us doing nothing to change it. Either way, I'm sure we can work out a solution that is respectful of the wishes of both the communities. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 04:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    • This is Wookieepedia! If the SWFanon admins are experiencing problems on their wiki, they can take care of it there. We created this template to solve our problems here. They have no arbitrary jurisdiction over the Wookieepedia community. We don't have to try and please them at all. It seems to me that the only real issue is that Jasca Ducato thinks that being an admin on another wiki gives him leave to boss us around here. Not so. —Graestan(This party's over) 16:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I beg to differ somewhat. Yes, I think we should keep the template as is (aside from the retina-blasting colors) with the links. However, we should also take the opinion of their admins into consideration at the very least- not because we have to, but because it's respectful of another wikia. So, no, we don't have to care what they say, but it's just a little common courtesy. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 17:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Um, it's the Star Wars Fanon wiki. It's for Star Wars fanon. If they don't want fanoneers there, they shouldn't have made it. It's what it's for. So when people want to do that, we redirect them there. Just like we'd redirect people who want to make Star Trek articles to Memory Alpha. If they don't like the people who show up, they can ban them. Why Jasca feels so compelled to bitch about it, I have no idea, but if he's soooooo in love with his little self-declared private domain that he doesn't care what happens here and wants to use it as his dumping ground, I'd be perfectly happy to keep him from ever having to bother with this wiki ever again. If you know what I mean. Havac 17:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • As a contributor at Fanon as well as... well you know, I feel that both wikis need a relationship that helps both of them grow. Granted we don't want fanon here, but all the more reason for SWF to improve on their skills on operating a wiki that cherishes it. You can talk to Squishy Vic, who is an admin over there and has been trying to improve its status in the Wikia community. And keep the links on the templates and pages. -- Riffsyphon1024 17:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    • And for what reason would you have me banned Havac? For not liking the fact that there's a link in a template? Nad once again, I don't ever remember saying that SWF is mine, or that I represent the whole community, as most of you seem to think. Jasca Ducato Sith Council 19:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and changed the layout of the template a little. --Imperialles 19:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    • You see, that I don't mind. The last version made it seem as if the user had to join SWF, whilst this is much more neutral, and is giving a choice. If I saw this, I wouldn't believe Wookieepedia is forcing people onto us. Jasca Ducato Sith Council 20:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Psh, I really don't care about this issue- the argument is over minutiae- but seriously, am I the only who finds the idea of Wookieepedia forcing people to go somewhere on the Internet laughable? Puh-leeze. We're offering people a place on the Internet to go post their "creations" and that place happens to be SWFanon. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 21:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I've got to agree with Ataru here. There seems to be overly dramatic responses here for something that is really not that big of a deal. It's not as if telling people to go to Star Wars Fanon is the equivilant to being taken out back and shot or anything, and no one is saying "you write bad stories, so go to Star Wars Fanon where you can find more bad stories" or anything like that. There is no reason to take this as any sort of insult to Star Wars Fanon or anything of the sort. - Brandon Rhea
  • Well, I actually like the wording on this a lot better. But I think the Red Leader picture and the caption "Cut the Fanon, Username" should be brought back, if only because it made me chuckle. Carlitos Moff 01:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I didn't see a problem with the old one. But whatever. -- Ozzel 02:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
      • According to Imperialles on IRC (forgive me if I start paraphrasing, Imp):
"As this is a warning template, the feel of the template needs to be less comical and more serious."
User:Imperialles, paraphrased slightly. Ok, paraphrased a lot.[src]
      • I'd still like to see that quote/picture used elsewhere. Maybe {{talkheader}}? But I digress. Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 04:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)