No edit summary |
m (archiving) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | {{Ten Forward Thread Nav}} |
+ | {{Ten Forward Thread Nav|policy|archive}} |
<!-- <nowiki>Please always sign your post with "-- ~~~~". See "[[Help:Talk page]]". Please do not overwrite any of this text, and write your comment below. </nowiki> --> |
<!-- <nowiki>Please always sign your post with "-- ~~~~". See "[[Help:Talk page]]". Please do not overwrite any of this text, and write your comment below. </nowiki> --> |
||
| − | I started this on the talk pages for |
+ | I started this on the talk pages for "Fan films" and [[Talk:Fan fiction|Fan fiction]], but it seems more apt to bring it up here, in one place. |
So... we've gone through this already with such things as websites, as in, whether we should be keepers of a website directory, and if so, what is "notable". Really, the same holds true for fan fiction and fan films. It's not really part of our mandate, especially with the existence of |
So... we've gone through this already with such things as websites, as in, whether we should be keepers of a website directory, and if so, what is "notable". Really, the same holds true for fan fiction and fan films. It's not really part of our mandate, especially with the existence of |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
::I agree... with a neighbouring wiki for exactly that content, we should not have ''too'' extensive pages about that, here. There would be problems with just ''moving'' content from here to there, because of different licenses, but it is definitely something that new contributors should be made aware of in some way. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 11:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC) |
::I agree... with a neighbouring wiki for exactly that content, we should not have ''too'' extensive pages about that, here. There would be problems with just ''moving'' content from here to there, because of different licenses, but it is definitely something that new contributors should be made aware of in some way. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 11:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC) |
||
| − | :::I think we can just do away with the fan film/writing listings altogether, and just keep [[fan fiction]] and |
+ | :::I think we can just do away with the fan film/writing listings altogether, and just keep [[fan fiction]] and "fan films" as a general description of the phenomena. It's not really anyone's place to say which are notable enough to mention and which are not. We should just stick to having information on licensed products and leave out stuff on non-licensed projects (except for mentions of the projects on the pages for those involved in said projects). --[[User:Shran|From Andoria with Love]] 22:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC) |
| + | |||
| + | ::::What qualifies as fancruft on a Star Trek wiki? That's deep. -- [[User:Connor Cabal|Connor Cabal]] 16:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC) |
||
| + | |||
| + | :::Anything not licensed by Paramount or CBS is "fancruft". That said, things not licensed by the studio but still created on a professional level for profit (i.e. ''[[The Physics of Star Trek]]'') should still be permitted. --[[User:Shran|From Andoria with Love]] 05:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC) |
||
| + | |||
| + | Part 1 of the process has begun: [[Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion/Fan fiction websites]] -- [[User:Sulfur|Sulfur]] 14:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 14:25, 9 October 2010
I started this on the talk pages for "Fan films" and Fan fiction, but it seems more apt to bring it up here, in one place.
So... we've gone through this already with such things as websites, as in, whether we should be keepers of a website directory, and if so, what is "notable". Really, the same holds true for fan fiction and fan films. It's not really part of our mandate, especially with the existence of ST:EU, which is the wiki for Star Trek fan fiction.
In addition to that, what is notable? Should we even mention some of them? Does that mean that we should mention them all? Should these pages merely be a brief description of what a fan film or fan fiction entails, and then have a pointer over to ST:EU?
I'd like to suggest that we take this step. Move any information on those entries over to the ST:EU that isn't already there, and then rework the two pages to discuss the "fan film/fiction phenom".
Thoughts? -- Sulfur 17:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- IMO, "Notable" would be anything that has been mentioned through some sort of a broad audience. Such as the New Voyages fan film, that is "notable" as it's been in several popular trek sites, the people involved interviewed on TV, Magazines, etc... Other then that sort of a grouping, or a mention (for lack of better terms) I'd say to place it on the expanded universe wiki. Otherwise, this site will grow to be so large, there would be no room for the important stuff. In short, mentioning random fan fictions through the site I think, would be a bad idea as there are countless out there.
- Did that make sense at all?--Terran Officer 04:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
By that same logic... we should have websites that have "been mentioned through some sort of broad audience". My real point here is that MA/en is not a fan fiction site. We do not aim to be the complete Star Trek encyclopedia. If we were, we'd spend all of our time rationalizing he differences raised in novels and comics as compared to the television shows and movies. On the other hand, ST:EU specializes in fan films and fan fiction, and is, for all intents and purposes, a sister site of ours (as is Memory Beta). We've already slimmed down the fan films article significantly, and I spent a couple of days moving a large amount of information from the old article to the ST:EU pages, where it is better suited. My real goal is to have a "short" (take your own definition of that) writeup on the fan fiction and fan film phenomenon and direct those interested in such over to ST:EU where they can find scads of information on the matter. Sure, we can mention some of the "better known" items on those articles as examples, such as New Voyages and/or Of Gods and Men, but we wouldn't even really direct people to their homepages, because we stray too much into the entire "we're promoting one over another" scenario. -- Sulfur 04:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- I agree... with a neighbouring wiki for exactly that content, we should not have too extensive pages about that, here. There would be problems with just moving content from here to there, because of different licenses, but it is definitely something that new contributors should be made aware of in some way. -- Cid Highwind 11:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think we can just do away with the fan film/writing listings altogether, and just keep fan fiction and "fan films" as a general description of the phenomena. It's not really anyone's place to say which are notable enough to mention and which are not. We should just stick to having information on licensed products and leave out stuff on non-licensed projects (except for mentions of the projects on the pages for those involved in said projects). --From Andoria with Love 22:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- What qualifies as fancruft on a Star Trek wiki? That's deep. -- Connor Cabal 16:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Anything not licensed by Paramount or CBS is "fancruft". That said, things not licensed by the studio but still created on a professional level for profit (i.e. The Physics of Star Trek) should still be permitted. --From Andoria with Love 05:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Part 1 of the process has begun: Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion/Fan fiction websites -- Sulfur 14:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)