FANDOM


Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/User page fanon: Thread

MATURE, ADULT POSTS ONLY. 'Nuff said. Now, let's have a civilized discussion with no name calling. I'm reserving the right to delete comments that a) start a flame war, b) are personal attacks, or c) devolve the conversation.

That being said... there are certain things you can't say in certain places (i.e. it is against the law to yell "fire" in a theater). As a private group, Wikipedia and its subsidiaries have the right to limit content. We ban fanon, so it seems logical to band all fanon. That's how I feel.

Dignified comments, supporting and dissenting, are appreciated. Unsigned comment by Cutch (talk • contribs).

  • We're not a Wikipedia subsidiary. (I may make more substantial comments later.) —Silly Dan (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh. Okay. But there's still technically the right to limit what information is on the site, correct (i.e. we're not going to put a real world article like Robin Williams on this site unless it has to do with SW)? Cutch 02:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • All of our restrictions on fanon and fanfic have thus far dealt solely with articles in the main article namespace. If someone wanted to write a biography of Robin Williams on their userpage, we don't currently have a policy which would stop them. We probably should have one, though. —Silly Dan (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Like I said before, it wouldn't bother me a bit if we banned it completely. However, if there are regular contributors who want it on their own userpage, then I can live with it. But I think people who come here only to work on their userpage should be banned. -- Ozzel 04:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Fan fiction ain't my thing but I don't have a problem with users having fanon on their user page. Given that the in-universe articles in Wookieepedia are written from the perspective of a fictional universe, I don't think it's out of place that some user pages contain fictional bios. Besides, who's to say what's fiction and what's not? Apparently there are people in the world who claim to be Jedi. ;) --Rudy 04:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
          • I suppose the most realistic viewpoint is Ozzel's. Is there any way to ban those who take advantage of the Wookieepedia solely for fanfic purposes? Cutch 05:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I feel that having fanon on userpages sends a mixed message to our newer editors. Telling them that fanon is not allowed anywhere on the main namespace but allowing it on userpages just seems to be contradictory, and it confuses newbies who don't know that the main namespace and the User space are two different things. Also, people who have more edits on their userpages than on actual articles should not be here at all IMO, but should be at the fanon wikia. They seem to encourage creativity there as much as we encourage accuracy here. We are an encyclopedia, and I feel the User space should be used to tell a little info on yourself and what you do on Wookieepedia, not as a personal notebook detailing the adventures of your fanon RPG character. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 07:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Its the users own personal space so we should allow it. Plus, the only way to get onto those pages is to click on a signature! So unless they intended to go there they wouldn't find it. Jasca Ducato 07:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Its easier than you might think. Many people, myself included, have numerous browser tabs/windows open at the same time when they are surfing the web. Sometimes, it is remarkably easy to forget what you opened up. I would suggest that we outlaw fanon on the main userpage, but allow it within a subpage (with perhaps a large fanon warning template at the top?). That way, we can almost eliminate the possibility of confusion and everyone will be happy...--Sentry [Talk] 08:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • There're lots of things we can put on our user pages that don't belong on main article pages: personal info, user boxes, giant lists of contributions... should all of these things be prohibited as well for fear that they might confuse new users? I agree, it's frustrating that some people edit their user page almost exclusively, but I think banning something that is harmless fun seems a little curmudgeonly to me, particularly for an encyclopedia about Star Wars. --Rudy 07:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I think you misunderstand me. Quoted from above: I feel the User space should be used to tell a little info on yourself and what you do on Wookieepedia. "A little info about yourself" includes personal info and userboxes, "What you do on Wookieepedia" includes giant lists of contributions and any projects you may be working on. I never said anything about proposing to prohibit those, and at least they are relevent to your work on the encyclopedia. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 08:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I agree, Rudy—it may seem a little harsh, but do we really need all these deadweights who just edit their user pages? Cutch 17:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
          • I edit my userpage alot, you calling me a deadweight now? As for a fanon warning, i agree that would be a good idea. But it is their userpage! Its like trying to outlasw Freedom of Speech, they wont accept it not being allowed, me included. Jasca Ducato
            • sigh... Calm down, Jasca. I see your edits—you do MORE than just edit your userpage. The deadweights I'm referring to are those who solely edit their userpages. Cutch 17:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
              • Sorry, i'm not pissed off or anything. I was just making a point, but i agree with you on those who edit just their userpages! But i don't see how that affects other people. I mean, i like making my fanon story, its something to do with spare time. And like i've said before, if it was made compulsory to add a Fanon Warning at the top then i would. Jasca Ducato 17:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
                • The way that it affects other people is through the Recent changes page. If I go there to see what articles are currently being worked on, and all fifty edits are by Billy the Sith editing User:Billy the Sith, then it renders the Recent changes page worthless to everyone. -- SM-716 ...talk? 19:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
                  • But if you read the Recent Changes list it says User:Jasca Ducato (or something like that). If you read the User part of it you will know its a user page. Jasca Ducato 19:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
                    • It's not that you won't know that it's a userpage; it's that if you want to see recent edits on real articles, they've already been pushed off the page because Bobby Zanzubar doesn't know how to use the preview button (or perhaps does know how and intentionally doesn't use it just to draw attention to his page). -- Ozzel 23:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • ...so one of the main issues is educating people to use the preview button. Everyone agree? Cutch 00:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it, there are two main reasons to ban it entirely:

  • Confusing to new users/editors who are unaware of the difference between the main namespace and the user namespace
  • Floods recent changes, waste of server bandwidth/database space

One of our policy pages, WP:NOT, spells out user page purpose in more detail: "Your user page and any associated sub pages are meant to give some information about yourself, and to help organize your contributions to Wookieepedia. Your user page should not be thought of as a personal homepage (as mentioned above, Wookieepedia is not a free host or webpage provider). In particular, writing a long imaginary biography of your persona in the Star Wars galaxy, or putting up a "collection" of dozens of userboxes or images, is not particularly helpful to Wookieepedia. Your user page should help you contribute to writing and editing articles for this project—it is not a substitute for improving the articles on this wiki." The way of many of these pages are being treated now is in exactly this manner – that of a free, Star Wars hosting site with nifty userboxes. As such, I support banning user page fanon entirely. RMF 01:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  • As someone who has a whole four sentences worth of parodic fanon bio on his userpage, I wouldn't be too upset to lose the fanon. However, I might prefer a less stringent policy, where the fanon must be restricted either to the main user page or to one and only one user subpage. Combined with an enforcement of a policy on user page images, publicizing the fanon wiki on the welcome templates, encouraging a standard "this user page is fanfic" template for any lengthy userpage fanfic, and reminding people to use the preview button, this would cut down on the problem. Unfortunately, it would not eliminate it. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I get the feeling that the main concern is those users who seem to edit their own pages almost exclusively. There might be a number of reasons why these users do this: Maybe they're not confident in making edits on the main pages and they want a place where they can do major edits without having someone revert them in five seconds. Or maybe they don't have a stack of reference material available and are able to only make small edits on the main pages, but would still like to have some place where they can contribute more significant edits. Limiting the size of user pages is reasonable if server space is an issue, but I think prohibiting something that is essentially harmless fun is unnecessary.--Rudy 08:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with Rudy, it seems to be only the people who edit their main pages repeatedly. Is it possible that, say a user edits his userpage a certain number of times in say, an hour that we automatically send him a warning about using the preview button. if the ignore it maybe a twelve hour ban or something, That way people who edit their userpage with the preview button aren't affected. Jasca Ducato 10:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I have a fanon userpage on here, and I got heat for making subpages and what-not, but at first I thought we were able to write fanon on there, but I put a disclaimer at thet top of my page saying it's fanon and nothing more. It seems to me that that would be one of the most logical reasons, but a disclaimer on the top telling the reader that it's fiction and nothing more. There's a lot of talent in here and if you deleted their articles, some might take it the wrong way and get upset or something. That's my point of view on this subject. Sato Stars 15:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
    • HOW TIMELY: User:Darth Fang. A NEW USER WHO, RATHER THAN CONTRIBUTING TO THE WIKI, HAS ONLY WORKED ON HIS USERPAGE. CAN WE REIGN THIS S*** IN? Cutch 20:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
      • ... and this too? The Recent Changes page is officially worthless. Cutch 20:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The whole reason the fanon wiki exists is for people to pour their creativity into their fanon articles. In my opinion, if you want to write stories, go to the fanon wiki and write them there. That being said, I would have no objections to editors here including a link on their userpage linking to any articles they have written on the fanon wikia, or their fanon wiki userpage. My main concern about keeping fanon on userpages as it is now is that encourages people here to write fanon bios on here when they could be doing it over at the fanon wiki (where they are begging for creative people) and sets a bad example for newbies to this site to do more of the same (i.e "Wow! Look at the cool fake bio! I wanna create an account so I can write one, too!"). Promoting the fanon wiki on the main page and either restricting or eliminating fanon on userpages may remedy this problem. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 22:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You could always ban the user that just works on their user page and nothing else. I think it's fine as long as you contribute to wookieepedia. Sato Stars 16:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Why should we ban for that? Don't be ridiculous. - Sikon [Talk] 14:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • For my self I haven't done much more than edited som articles and been working on my userpage. I haven't got the time until now. Completly agree with Sikon why ban for that? Lorth Needa 14:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Because it does not but take up the recent changes page. I agree with Sato Stars on this, if all they do is edit their userpages, even if it isn't fanon, they sould be banned for say, a week or something, until they sort themselves out and start contributing properly. Jasca Ducato 11:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Did I mention that I started a Consensus track thread on this? —Silly Dan (talk) 12:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
        • When I said ban, I did not mean indefinatly. Just as a warning so that when they return, they would contribute more. That's what I do now, contribute first, then, when I get around to it, I'd further my user page. Sato Stars 17:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • As RMF brought up, "One of our policy pages, WP:NOT, spells out user page purpose in more detail: "Your user page and any associated sub pages are meant to give some information about yourself, and to help organize your contributions to Wookieepedia. Your user page should not be thought of as a personal homepage (as mentioned above, Wookieepedia is not a free host or webpage provider). In particular, writing a long imaginary biography of your persona in the Star Wars galaxy, or putting up a "collection" of dozens of userboxes or images, is not particularly helpful to Wookieepedia. Your user page should help you contribute to writing and editing articles for this project—it is not a substitute for improving the articles on this wiki." The way of many of these pages are being treated now is in exactly this manner – that of a free, Star Wars hosting site with nifty userboxes. As such, I support banning user page fanon entirely." That seems pretty clear to me. The rules are the rules. There's nothing inherently wrong with writing fanon, but Wookieepedia is not the place for it. This is not censorship, this is not removing freedom of speech, as I've seen people argue. It's just following policy and making Wookieepedia a resource of Star Wars fact, not a personal plaything. Havac 19:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, well let's put it this way. It was just about 2 days ago that I seriously began to contribute to wookiepeedia. Earlier I almost ignored that I actually had a membership. Wich of course, was totally wrong thing to do. As you say, users like that are only dead-weight. But I started to improve my userpage first. I mean it's much more polite to have a good userpage before anything else, that really explains who you are and so on. And now I have started to understand what it means to be a wookiepeedian and how much work an article demands. I recently began to drew on a list of possible interesting articles that don't yet exists. So hopefully some of these will go down the same path as I did but I agree with you that wookiepeedia shouldn't be used for personal entertainment and so on. Does it sound reasonable? Lorth Needa 22:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with putting up a user page without contributing a lot to actual articles (I have an account on several other wikis, though this and Wikipedia are the only ones where I've made a lot useful contributions. On the other hand, I've kept my user pages on other wikis pretty minimal.) What we regular users seem to be objecting to is people using this exclusively as a free webhost. We don't want to stop people from having fun: this whole wiki is a fan site for a space opera franchise, it should be fun! What I want to do by restricting user pages is more akin to insisting that people stop playing tennis on our hockey rink. On the other hand, we'd welcome new hockey players. Also, once again, I point everyone to the Consensus track thread. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.