User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-31010985-20190928203157/@comment-6032121-20191011091746
User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-31010985-20190928203157/@comment-6032121-20191011091746 User:Amorkuz: I do not deny that what I called your "narrow legalese definition" might be what an official publishing company's lawyer would give as the definition. I am simply arguing that that is not the definition we should care about. Furthermore, here is evidence that Arcbeatle Press is acknowledged as a publisher by an undoubtably respectable professional entity, Decipher, Inc.. Clearly your definition of publisher isn't the only one in use by "the industry", and there are others which explicitly allow for Arcbeatle Press to be one.
Besides, as RingoRoadAgain pointed out, the only reason we started to talk about publishers was that certain parties were arguing that publishers had something to do with fanfiction status. No one has ever claimed it was otherwise relevant. So if as you say you "don't like" the Merriam-Webster definition and aren't trying to establish that the crossovers are fanfiction based on said definition… again, pray tell, why is the matter of whether the publisher is a self-publisher relevant? Based on what Wiki policy?
(It is one thing that an uninvolved admin will be the one to pass final judgement on this question, as you state. But one cannot simply allow random facts to continue to be cited without reason until such a neutral admin passes by! Or would I be allowed to conduct my aforementioned research into the colour of James Wylder's cleaning lady's socks unless and until an involved admin visited the thread?)
As for the "fanfiction" argument itself, User:Bwburke94 has hit the nail on the head: why do we reject "fanfiction"? Why does T:NO FANFIC exist? Because of Rule 2. Because the fear is that it's unlicensed. If there is another hidden reason not mentioned in policy why "fanfiction" isn't valid, I or anyone else have yet to hear of it. As I understand it, T:NO FANFIC is a strongly-worded clarification of a special case of Rule 2, not a restriction of its own; if it were it really ought to be put on T:VS as Rule 5. Except, why would we want to do that? If by some twist of fate something that would fall under a certain definition of "fanfiction" actually otherwise passes the 4 Little Rules, why would we not want to cover it?
Plus, you don't seem to follow your "if we follow one definition we have to follow the other" to its logical conclusion. If one cannot rely on the dictionary definition of "publisher" without also accepting the dictionary definition of "fanfiction", then the reverse ought to hold: you can only try to argue that the stories are invalid based on T:NO FANFIC for being fanfiction if you also accept the non-legalese definition of "publisher". And if you accept said non-legalese definition, then the stories are no longer "posted by a fan", they are released by a publisher.
Also also also, Shambala above wants to hear from the other two admins who made the decision with you, could you kindly give us their name and/or notify them on their talk page, we have been asking for this for ages, thanks.
