Trusted
8,503
edits
Forum:Relaxing our fan works policy (within reason): Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Forum:Relaxing our fan works policy (within reason) (edit)
Revision as of 05:26, 28 February 2024
, 28 Februaryno edit summary
No edit summary Tag: visualeditor-wikitext |
No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{Archive}}[[Category:Panopticon archives]][[Category:Policy changers]] | ||
<!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> | <!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> | ||
== Proposal == | == Proposal == | ||
| Line 147: | Line 147: | ||
:It is where the threshold is for "incredibly notable" works as [[User:Aquanafrahudy|Aquanafrahudy]] terms that is my concern if we are creating dedicated pages for these works, rather than them just being covered on an umbrella page. | :It is where the threshold is for "incredibly notable" works as [[User:Aquanafrahudy|Aquanafrahudy]] terms that is my concern if we are creating dedicated pages for these works, rather than them just being covered on an umbrella page. | ||
:[[User:Najawin|Najawin]] raises an interesting point, but I'm not sure if it's relevant, unreleased / unproduced stories that are released inhabit a little bit of a different sphere to stories that are pure fan productions. There is the implication with the former that they were commissioned (or had the potential to be) vs just a fan work. —[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 06:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC) | :[[User:Najawin|Najawin]] raises an interesting point, but I'm not sure if it's relevant, unreleased / unproduced stories that are released inhabit a little bit of a different sphere to stories that are pure fan productions. There is the implication with the former that they were commissioned (or had the potential to be) vs just a fan work. —[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 06:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC) | ||
== Conclusion == | |||
<div class="tech"> | |||
=== Introduction === | |||
==== Other Wikis do cover fan works to some degree ==== | |||
This thread speaks to a real need. Look at our brethren, the other Wikis of big science-fiction or fantasy universes: [[w:c:starwars:Fanon|Wookieepedia has a short "Fanon" page]] and an official [[w:c:starwars:Fan film|"soft redirect" to a side-Wiki's "Fan film" page]]. [[w:c:memorybeta:Fan fiction|Memory Beta has a "Fan fiction" page]]. The HP folks not only have [[w:c:harrypotter:Fanon|a page about "Fanon" as a whole]] but [[w:c:harrypotter:Fanon#Notable fanfiction|multiple pages about notable specific fanfictions]]. Likewise the ''Lord of the Rings'' Wiki has [[w:c:lotr:Category:Fanfilms|an entire category for "fanfilms"]]. | |||
''Contra'' our I.P. user, I don't think covering fan works to ''some'' degree, in a specific, delineated way, is going to confuse the readers. It's what Wikis do! It's what all Wikis do ''except for us''! What's good for the goose, etc. In fact, I think it is clear [[T:NO FANFIC]], a rule which — as [[User:Tangerineduel]] recalls — was created more as a stopgap measure against early vandalism than a reasoned, complex policy framework, has caused us to fall behind in an aspect of coverage which most other Wikis absolutely take for granted to ''one'' degree or another. Our [[Fan fiction]] page is — well, it's not the ''most'' embarrassing, but it's much less than what it should be. | |||
==== We are not here to be taken seriously, but to actually be serious ==== | |||
Moreover, I do want to nip in the bud this dangerous notion that we should care about something like the idea that the Wiki "struggles to be taken seriously with what it covers as it stands". Whoever said "being taken seriously by nondescript 'fans'" was one of our goals? Like, at all? Ever? Maybe we should add a little note at [[Tardis:What the Tardis Data Core is not]]: "the Tardis Data Core is not a PR campaign". We could call it [[T:NO PR]]. It would be cute. …In all seriousness, '''we are here to provide as thorough, accurate, and easily-browsed a record of information as possible'''; we do not bow to the whims of those who would see us ''deleting information'' simply because they think it's silly. Not now, not ever. We may as well delete the site if we surrendered to such destructive, obscurantist instincts. | |||
The very bedrock of [[T:VS]] is "we cover as much official-DWU-adjacent stuff as we ''can'', while making our sourcing transparent, and individual readers can decide what they keep and what they overlook". Had we the means, we would be within our remit to decide to cover all ''Doctor Who'' fanfiction ''ever'', so long as we devised a structured, easily-grokked way for readers to distinguish between licensed and unlicensed stuff, and to find the licensed stuff without having to wade through reams of fanfic. Unfortunately, that's easier said than done, and moreover, there are ''insane'' amounts of ''Doctor Who'' fanfic in the world; more than a Wiki even of our size could hope to make a dent in without actual literal centuries of work. It's a resolutely "post-Singularity" kinda project, as it were; not to be spoken of until then, lest we drown our good limited efforts in a sea of redlinks and stubs and poorly-policed vandalism. It's not that we ''shouldn't'' cover fanfiction for some grand cosmic reason, it's just that we… very literally… ''can't''. It would kill the Wiki to try. | |||
That is, we can't cover all of it. | |||
But if we can carve out narrow strips of that giant piece of work called "fanfiction", and cover ''those'' to a standard of completion, in a way which improves our coverage of official ''[[Doctor Who]]'' media and their history — we should. We absolutely should. By the view of many not-wes, we are ''already doing this'': this terminology is not to be used on-Wiki, of course, but if you want to talk outside view, to many people, ''[[Wartime (home video)|Wartime]]'' and ''[[Sil and the Devil Seeds of Arodor (home video)|Sil and the Devil Seeds of Arodor]]'' are "fanfilms" — just "fanfilms that happen to be licensed by the individual license-holders". | |||
Now what remains is to determine to ''what'' degree we grant fan works coverage, and along what parameters; but that degree is not zero. | |||
=== What shall we cover? === | |||
==== Notability doesn't cut it ==== | |||
I do understand the wish to have a page about something like ''The Doctor and the Enterprise''. It is, after all, what some of those other Wikis do. But it is very conspicuous that the Wikis that do this are the ones for comparatively smaller bodies of work. The ''HP'' and ''LotR'' Wiki do not, as we do, ''struggle'' to even cover all the ''licensed'' fiction; their communities do not have to contend with potentially ''thousands'' of fanfics with ''some'' kind of claim to notability. I think the only reasonable way to make a pure notability criterion "work" would be to rely on established reference source: "if it's been documented in a reference source otherwise covered by this Wiki, like [[DWM]], then it can have a page". | |||
But the problem with that is firstly that there would ''still be an awful lot of it'' for full pages with plot summaries and the like (even if we obviously do not grant them in-universe coverage!); and secondly, {{w|Goodhart's law}}. Within a year people would be tripping over each other to get their little thingie name-dropped in ''Vworp Vworp'' and voilà, ticket to fame. | |||
(Some people raised a similar argument to people getting ahold of a DWU actor to reprise their role, but I think that's different, as we'll get to in a moment: having a DWU actor in your thingie is not ''a measurement of notability'', it is ''itself'' a notable fact. People doing notable things on purpose is not the same thing as people trying to ''get noticed'' on pri,ciple regardless of whether they actually did anything interesting!) | |||
'''We will not be implementing bespoke, individual non-covered pages for fan works on grounds of sheer "notability"/historical importance'''. | |||
==== Lists ==== | |||
As [[User:Borisashton]] noted: | |||
{{quote|Lists with a narrower focuses and clearer remits are the way to go. (…) 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}} | |||
I think this is very sound. There has also been a lot of support for some variation of [[List of fan works in which Doctor Who actors reprised their roles]] — I think the page should be at [[List of fan works in which official actors reprised their roles]] (with that other name as a redirect), because surely if [[Robert Moloney]] reprises [[Alistair Gryffen]], or indeed just if [[Anjli Mohindra]] reprises [[Rani Chandra]], that's just as relevant as if [[Simon Fisher-Becker]] reprises [[Dorium Maldovar]], even if those are not technically "''Doctor Who''" actors. | |||
I think the basic way to go is '''expand [[Fan fiction]] into a much bulkier [[Fan works]] page''' (with redirects at [[Fan film]], [[Fanfiction]], etc.), outlining '''a history of unlicensed DWU fiction using reliable documentary sources''', which will be able to discuss such things as the impact of ''The Doctor and the Enterprise'' — and '''a smattering of list pages, beginning with [[List of fan works mentioned in Doctor Who Magazine]] and [[List of fan works in which Doctor Who actors reprised their roles]], to complete it'''. Further list pages should not be created freely, but more can be subjected and discussed at [[Talk:Fan works]] at any time. Ideally, they should emerge organically as split-offs from sections of the page. | |||
(Likewise, if there is call for it, "Fan film", "Fan fiction" and whatever other mediums could hypothetically be split off. But this strikes me as awkward because comics, etc. are all "fiction"; there is no really good name for ''prose-''only fanfiction, and there might not be much demand for a bespoke "Fan video games" page even if there are a few that warrant discussion. A gestalt history seems, on the whole, wiser than trying to split hairs.) | |||
With regards to fan-creators not ''wanting'' these things covered, well, as discussed earlier: | |||
{{quote|Private fanfilms are private; we wouldn't cover them simply because we couldn't reliably source their existence. Ones that were intended as private twenty years ago, but leaked, and are now a single Google click away from fans' enjoyment… well, it's unfortunate for their creators, but their creation has become a de facto part of the DWU's history by that point. (…) It's not as though we would oblige should a DWU rightsholder tell us that they'd rather we deleted our page on [[The Master (The Destination Wars)]], or [[The Talons of Weng-Chiang, (TV story)|''Talons'']], or (etc. etc. Insert Old Shame Here). If it's out and relevant, it's out and relevant.|User:Scrooge MacDuck}} | |||
Further, as [[User:OttselSpy25]] noted, all these proposed lists would largely ''collate'' information which it is already within policy to include on specific BTS pages in isolation. '''Neither ''List of fan works…'' should contain a full cast-and-crew or the like, or even a plot summary — just the basics of the fan-work's title, medium, date/medium of release, and claim(s) of relevance to official ''Who''.''' | |||
==== "Non-valid sources" and source-pages ==== | |||
As of the promulgation of [[Tardis:Subpage policy]], it has become official site policy that in "#In non-valid sources" subsections and on "/Non-valid sources" subpages, we can cite not only the licensed appearances of the DWU element at hand in {{tlx|invalid}}, but any authorised appearance by that concept ''in otherwise-unlicensed story'' — e.g. a charity story where an author of official works has one of their creator-owned inventions interacting with BBC-owned characters in a way which also sheds more light on the licensed character. | |||
Although these sources are still substantially ''not covered'' — i.e. they don't get full plot summaries, nor pages about their cast and crew — they do need pages in some shape or form, so that the citations have something to link to. So far, this has been done exclusively within the framework of [[:Category:Real world series with DWU connections]], but this has proven increasingly unsatisfying. Certainly, when such a series or anthology ''exists'' for the non-covered work, it's a handy solution to prevent coverage-overreach — but there is simply no satisfying way to fold standalone fanfics, or indeed standalone non-fanfic works with DWU connections like Magrs's ''Exchange''. Everything that has been proposed has been a clumsy patch, unintuitive and unconducive to detailed/well-sourced coverage even if it's ''theoretically possible''. Perhaps it ''would'' "be very useful to have a ‘Other works with ties to ''Doctor Who''’ section on author pages", but the idea that you could start at [[Panda/Non-valid sources]] and get redirected by a story citation to an ''author page'' seems unreasonably disruptive. | |||
In conclusion, '''[[:Category:Real world series with DWU connections]] should be renamed to, or made a subcategory of, a [[:Category:Real world media with DWU connections]] page apt to contain pages about standalone works which connect to the DWU in the same way as the series currently covered in the former category'''. These pages should ''not'' be formatted like source pages, with a complete plot summary and cast list, but rather, like the existing "real world series…" page, with a short blurb on their premise and then an exploration of the in- and out-of-univere connections to stuff we actually cover. | |||
==== Special cases ==== | |||
It gets in via [[Adrienne Kramer]], but I hereby enshrine that ''[[Time Rift (fan work)]]'' would also have warranted a page on the grounds of belonging in the [[:Category:Entities thanked by production]] category (the rename from [[:Category:People thanked by production]] proposed by [[User:Borisashton]] should indeed be enacted, and should have been a long time ago to accommodate the likes of [[Aldbourne (village)]]). | |||
Due to its [[Devious (home video)|unique circumstances]], ''[[Devious (fan work)|Devious]]'' probably warrants a page in "[[:Category:Real world media with DWU connections]]" if nothing else, as per fairly clear consensus. I say "if nothing else" because we really ''should'' have {{tlx|invalid}} in-universe coverage of what can be seen in [[Devious (home video)|the officially-released ''Devious'' short]] — I think ruling otherwise was a product of an ethos of coverage that is simply out of date in light of things like the subpage policy — and it follows that, I suppose, the wider fan ''Devious'' is potentially a "licensed for specific characters but no the BBC elements" NCMaterial source for the pages of the fan-created characters as they appear in the officially-released ''Devious''. Confusing. | |||
Another bit of old policy-making which I think needs dusting off in light of all these expansions is the ruling of [[Thread:136206]], which discussed the "''Doctor Who'' Online Adventures", a fanmade series of stop-motion ''Doctor Who'' adventures which obtained a non-commercial "creative license" from the BBC. This was the origin of [[Tardis:Valid sources#Rule 2|Rule 2]] being specified as discussing "commercial licenses", as opposed to any old non-commercial license; and as far as it goes that was probably sound. But there was a sort of all-or-nothing attitude at work, where ''either'' we had to resign ourselves to covering this stuff as official ''Who'' right alongside Big Finish and IDW, ''or'' it had to be banished from the Wiki to the last. This seems like poor acknowledgement of the BBC going out of their way to give these things a stamp of approval; they're extensions of the official ''Doctor Who'' brand to ''some'' degree, and our history of it is incomplete if we do not account for them. '''Such works should henceforth be eligible for real-world overview pages along the same lines as the previous section, in a [[:Category:Real world fan works which received a creative license from the BBC]] subcategory'''. (The naming can be tweaked on the category talk page if desired.) A page about the ''Online Adventure'' might include a list of episodes and a basic history, focusing on its interactions with the Beeb and official ''Who''. | |||
(Note that this applies to works which have ''officially'' gotten a Creative License(TM) from the BBC; not to any old fanfilm or charity publication which got an unofficial "go-ahead so long as it's not for profit" from some BBC spokesman, but did not get the right to have an "authorised by the BBC" sticker on it!) | |||
==== Dab terms ==== | |||
Although redirects at conventional medium dab terms (e.g. [[Time Rift (home video)]]) should exist, it seems reasonable that pages on individual fan works, when they exist, should be dabbed in a way which clearly conveys this. The proposal of "fan series" for something like ''Devious'', however, is absolutely wrong — ''Devious'' is a serial in the Hartnell/Troughton mould; it's not a "series" any more than [[An Unearthly Child (TV story)]] is. | |||
And moreover, the protean nature of many fan works makes it hard to apply our classic medium dabs. ''Time Rift'' was originally "(home video)", but I'll warrant most people who have seen it know it as a YouTube webcast. In the case of prose fanfiction, for an online release on a website like [[FanFiction.Net]], when does a "short story" tip over into a "novel", exactly? Is it about wordcount? Chapter breaks? It's confusing — and it's not germane to how people think of fanfiction. Even a 200,000-words-long fanfiction is not typically termed a "novel" by either its author or its readers: it's just… a fanfic. | |||
In the end, it seems to me that '''universally applying "(fan work)" to our pages about fan works''' (whether they be individual works or series) is best. | |||
==== Final thoughts ==== | |||
I don't have much to say here, but as always, thank you to everyone who participated! [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 14:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
</div> | |||
