Forum:Fanon namespace

Forums: Index → Watercooler → Fanon namespace

I was thinking about this, perhaps we can create a namespace to cover notable fanon? This can allow us to bring in potential new users, which will then draw attention to the Wiki, increase activity, and in turn draw attention to the mainspace, while the fanon namespace will keep fanon material separate from the official material. We would need some regulation though, to keep the fanon namespace from devolving into a heap where anyone can put up anything. Such as, we can rewrite SW:NOTE to cover fanon material for the fanon namespace as well, where only fan games/movies/fiction that are deemed notable enough will be allowed, along with their related content. We will also make it clear that the fanon namespace is not a place you can put your opinions of a Smash game, such as your own tier lists, matchup charts, etc.

I'm myself am unsure about this, and haven't gave it too much thought, but I would like to see what the rest of the Wiki thinks about this idea. Omega Tyrant 14:10, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

I don't think fanon should be on SW, because it has not really anything to do with Smash Bros. and it is basically just a creation of people who's favourite characters weren't in Smash Bros. and thus they put it in fanon stuff. I personally think they suck really bad. And there is an article about fan games.-- PSIWolf (T • C • E) 14:18, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

Hmmm... While I wouldn't really want fanon in the mainspace, making a new Fanon namespace also seems a bit too supportive. SmashWiki was originally just a resource for competitive Smashers, and while it may not be exactly that any more, it's still about playing the games, and nothing else. Based on the old SmashWiki's attempts at covering fanon, I would probably oppose, mainly due to it being very difficult to define notable fanon. However, as you said, it's still just a half-formed thought, and I would like to see some sort of mock-up of a potential Fanon namespace page before entirely committing myself to supporting or opposing this change. PenguinofDeath 14:29, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

Massive oppose. I don't think it is necessary in the slightest, and would serve as a major distraction from other things we could be improving. Miles (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

Oppose. While an interesting concept, I feel that the guidelines on fanon would be very difficult to precisely define. After all, Super Smash Flash had an article on the Wikia, and that was based on its popularity, which by itself is difficult to define. ReiDemon 15:38, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

I'm not very sure about this idea. ..... Trading card game 18:15, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

Oppose that is OVER 9000!: I remember all pages but Smash Flash being deleted on SmashWikia, and that wasn't very fair imo. I'm also pretty opposed to Fanon except for outside the mainspace. --RoyboyX Talk 18:27, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

This isn't that bad an idea in the short run, but once it gets underway we'll be back dealing with undefinable and unprovable notability. Oppose. Toomai Glittershine The Obfuscating 18:38, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

Exactly what about this makes it a good idea? You think we would want the type of user who is only interested in creating fanon and has no desire to improve the rest of the wiki? The regulation would most likely be ignored, and we'd have to go and revert all of the unnecessary crap. This would cause more harm than good. If we want to do fanon, we should make a fanon wiki. DokteurPain99 18:46, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

The idea was it would draw in those users, who would then take an interest in other areas of the Wiki. Inevitably, there would be users only interested in the fanon, but that would be outweighed by the activity increase and those who came for fanon that did took an interest in the rest of the Wiki.

Anyway, I'm growing more opposed to this idea rather than neutral, but it was worth throwing it out there to see what everyone else thought. Omega Tyrant 19:02, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

Yeah we have to be really careful about Fanon. Just look at the other wiki . If we allow some fanon, the lines about what fanon is "notable" becomes hazy, and we end up attracting tons of unwanted contributers. Mr. Anontalk 20:06, 17 October 2011 (EDT)