Trusted
44,460
edits
Forum:Relaxing our fan works policy (within reason) (edit)
Revision as of 20:44, 9 June 2023
, 9 June 2023no edit summary
No edit summary Tag: visualeditor-wikitext |
Borisashton (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tag: visualeditor-wikitext |
||
| Line 124: | Line 124: | ||
:: Yes, I meant the Magrs novel as mentioned above — going along with the aforementioned principle on which we agree that the same basic standards should apply to the coverage of ''all'' non-covered sources, whether they be fan works or [[:Category:Real world series with DWU connections]] fodder. I don't know, it just seems very strange to me that as soon as something is a trilogy we can give that trilogy its own "series" page, but a standalone work with the same amount of connections would be placed under a completely different theory of coverage. You propose to "follow the long-established ''Charity publcation'' precedent", but we've recently been engaged in the disengorgement of that page via the creation of specific anthology pages for /Non-valid_sources-citable ones — and again, it would seem ''really strange'' to me to still redirect to [[Charity publication]], instead of a bespoke page, if we ever find ourselves wanting to cite a charity ''novel'' on one of these subpages. It's unintuitive. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 19:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC) | :: Yes, I meant the Magrs novel as mentioned above — going along with the aforementioned principle on which we agree that the same basic standards should apply to the coverage of ''all'' non-covered sources, whether they be fan works or [[:Category:Real world series with DWU connections]] fodder. I don't know, it just seems very strange to me that as soon as something is a trilogy we can give that trilogy its own "series" page, but a standalone work with the same amount of connections would be placed under a completely different theory of coverage. You propose to "follow the long-established ''Charity publcation'' precedent", but we've recently been engaged in the disengorgement of that page via the creation of specific anthology pages for /Non-valid_sources-citable ones — and again, it would seem ''really strange'' to me to still redirect to [[Charity publication]], instead of a bespoke page, if we ever find ourselves wanting to cite a charity ''novel'' on one of these subpages. It's unintuitive. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 19:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC) | ||
As regards the specific items mentioned in the OP, I would say that both ''Time Rift'' and ''Devious'' maybe deserve pages under current policy regardless of the outcome of this thread. As mentioned above, ''Time Rift'' could potentially be a NOTCOVERED source page or have a home in a "Entities thanked by production" category tree. (This is currently [[:Category:People thanked by production|Category:''People'' thanked by production]] but it's not a great name because [[Aldbourne (village)]], [[The Blue Boar]] and [[St Michael's Church (real world)]] aren't technically people.) With ''Devious'', if we're proposing to dab it "(fan series)", doesn't that make it eligible for a [[:Category:Real world series with DWU connections]] page if we count [[Devious (home video)|the home video]] as a licensed crossover? And that's before we consider the various behind-the-scenes links too. | |||
As for ''The Doctor and the Enterprise'', I'm not in favour of a separate page. Notability is an extremely broad parameter and I don't think it would make very good precedent. Lists with a narrower focuses and clearer remits are the way to go, I think. It's for this reason that I'd like to see [[List of fan works in which Doctor Who actors reprised their roles]] created in some form, even if it doesn't end up being a ''complete'' list due to the concerns raised above. Continuing on the topic of lists, I believe ''[[Doctor Who Magazine]]'' has (or used to have) a regular feature in which a few fan videos were given a small spotlight in each issue. Is there a reason why something like [[List of fan works mentioned in Doctor Who Magazine]] wouldn't be possible? ''DWM'' is a long-running official publication and a list like this would be another one where what's allowed and what's not is crystal clear. [[User:Borisashton|Borisashton]] [[User talk:Borisashton|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC) | |||