Forum:Relaxing our fan works policy (within reason): Difference between revisions

Forum:Relaxing our fan works policy (within reason) (edit)

Revision as of 19:57, 28 May 2023

2,908 bytes added , 28 May 2023

→‎Discussion

Najawin

Trusted

8,509

edits

@@ Line 49: / Line 49: @@
 : Generally, I do agree this is an area where we need to expand our coverage, I am just weary about the extent I suppose. A final note is that I have for a few months been thinking that we need to split [[Template:Invalid]] at least into two pieces - one for stories which are invalid and one for stories which we have ''pages on'' but do not themselves justify coverage on in-universe section (AKA "not covered"). If we end up with a third one for fan works, that's fine, but I do think a NOTCOVERED template would cover that ground. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 19:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
+::Ahhhh! I didn't see this at first. Okay, I have thoughts. So, the relevant policy is [[T:NO FANFIC]] which is part of [[T:NOT]], written in Dec 2009. The fanworks discussions in 2009 that I can find are [[Talk:TARDIS key]], [[Talk:Enlightenment (fanzine)]], and to a lesser extent (because it shows that charity works were around) [[Tardis talk:Prefixes/Archive 1]]. I don't think any of these caused the policy, I think it was people treating the wiki like wikipedia, leading to the creation of the original policy, which [[User:Tangerineduel]] wrote based on his needs at the time and policies from other wikis. I could be wrong, he and others are free to correct me. Partially on the basis of this charity works were booted off the wiki in 2011, see [[Forum:Charity anthology short stories]]. (Really the policy would be used as a catch all on the issue later, this discussion didn't default to it.)
+::But this is one of those early policies that didn't have clear discussion that I can find. [[Talk:DWIN]] does say that we can't have a list of Doctor Who Fan Clubs (and this extends to Fan Sites) because such a list would be endless and we would miss some. And it's quite right to do so. But [[Talk:Doctor Who Club of Australia]], a year later, explicitly acknowledges, if tentatively, that ''notable'' clubs and sites might still be worth mentioning. But [[:Category:Fan websites]] is incredibly empty - for a variety of reasons. [[Talk: Doctor Who fan music]], [[Talk: The Doctor and the Enterprise/Archive 1]], [[Talk: I Am the Doctor: The Unauthorised Diaries of a Timelord]], [[User talk:Stardizzy2]], and [[Forum:Canonicity of ''I Am the Doctor'']] all touch on the issue, but none of them ever establish clear precedent that fanworks can't have pages here imo. Insofar as there's an issue, it's that R2 -> no page, not just invalid. But that doesn't apply to all fanworks, and it's not immediately obvious from [[T:VS]], it's more a convention.
+::I have a thread in the works that may surprise some of you that will touch on R2, (though it's weeks if not months away) and while I'm not convinced that it will change R2, it should force us to critically examine it.
+::With all of this said, I'm not sure where I stand on specifics. Time Rift, sure, Devious, yeah, Enterprise, ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. The talk page for this one makes me feel a little squeamish. But I'd also suggest that we allow [[Charity publication]] style articles for particularly notable fan productions in general. If we know a fan production has a direct DWU link, through licensed characters or cast/crew, we create a page that notes that and discusses the production in the broadest possible terms. Similarly if the fan production goes on to inspire DWU work and this is stated in interviews by DWU cast/crew. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)