- The title of this thread checks out. I thought this was a joke at first.
- Just drop the creation of fanons and create a wiki devoted for those. The fanon namespace of The Sims Wiki was formerly a part of the The Sims Wiki Fanon Wiki, which exclusively held fanon content. After a community discussion in 2011, the fanon wiki was merged with The Sims Wiki due to low readership on the fanon wiki and a growing fanon community on The Sims Wiki. A separate wiki for fanons had already existed but was merged because it's better to be together, and fanon authors could now take advantage of all the existing templates we have on this wiki for use in their fanons. There is too much needless duplication to have to split fanon off to a new wiki and have to recreate all of the templates on this wiki to work over there. Too much work for too little payoff.
- It's just that wiki should kinda be seeking for quality and not personal journals of members that feel like sharing stories. How does this relate to splitting off the fanon namespace to a new wiki? Fanon has its own levels of quality, with some fanon being of better quality than others. We encourage fanon authors to put effort into their fanon creations. You are grossly mistaken in believing that fanon is just a "journal" for people to share their stories. The fanon namespace is very diverse in its content, and we do enforce some standards of quality. However, I simply cannot see how this premise connects with your main argument. If there is low quality stuff on the wiki, the answer is not to split them off into a new wiki, but to improve on content. You would not split off low quality articles on Wikipedia to a new "garbage dump" wiki, so I do not see why we would need to take this approach here. A low quality fanon here should be improved by its fanon authors.
- Just keep the existing nows, but take/alleviate/eradicate the ability to create new and more fanons. Elaborate. How would this resolve any of our issues? How does this correlate with your main argument? I don't follow.
- Just create additional wiki (affliated perhaps with this one maybe) devoted and dedicated for fanon creation. I don't follow either. In the last sentence you said that we should restrict fanon creation on this wiki, yet in this sentence you said we should split it off into a new wiki. Which one are you proposing? Are you proposing both? I don't see the logical argumentative structure in here, and I can't follow along.
- Yeah, that's a harsh one. Probably won't be accepted and might stare hate. Even more I don't think I can word out my reason properly. Look, DrakonoSkerdikas, what I'm seeing here is a proposal that evidently shows you haven't put much thought into it. The community discussions forum is to propose serious changes as to how we can improve the community. You should have put some thought into your proposals before proposing them here to avoid wasting the community's time. In addition, the very name of this thread, "Says something unpopular and controversial", suggests you are not even serious with this very proposal at all, so it is a waste of the community's time. As the IP above mentioned, you're welcome to ramble in your user blog namespace, or even in the off-topic forum, but not in this forum. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:57, February 3, 2019 (UTC)
- Before I get into my response to this proposal, I just want to encourage everyone to remember to be respectful, even when disagreeing with others. The first comment in the discussion (by the unregistered user) is exactly the kind of tone we don't want to see in forum threads. Even if you strongly disagree with someone, do so in a respectful and productive manner, please. I would also add that this forum is not necessarily reserved for ideas that come "fully formed;" it's okay to start a thread that is simply a suggestion as opposed to a formal proposal. However, I would suggest that users shouldn't start discussions regarding issues they aren't serious about; you should be able to be a strong proponent for your own particular idea or proposal, not simply propose it halfheartedly.
- As to the proposal itself... I can't say I'm terribly supportive of the idea of either locking or spinning-off the Fanon namespace. TSW has a long, long history regarding how it has treated fanon, and the current arrangement was arrived at after lengthy discussion and a lot of work by a lot of different people. That alone isn't a reason to stick with the status quo, but I think it does make it important that, before we decide to change, that we seriously weigh the options and make a good decision. As it stands, I don't see much of a justification for changing the way things are now. On the contrary, I see several reasons why fanon should be kept and expanded, not eliminated.
- Fanon is a good tool to bring new readers and editors into the wiki. Some of our best and busiest editors of the past and present (including a few administrators) started out as fanon writers. Having fanon gives users an outlet to tell their stories, and keeps them from potentially leaving TSW and going to another site to do so. Additionally, as one of the few currently-active administrators who was also an administrator before the TSW/TSFW merger and the creation of the Fanon namespace, I can tell you that managing fanon creations prior to the creation of the Fanon namespace was a pain in the ass; you'd have to find some way to migrate fanon pages over to the Fanon Wiki (which was and still is a separate wiki from TSW), or else you'd end up having to delete them, and that'd almost inevitably end up pissing off authors.
- At the end of the day, the problems created by having fanon on TSW are far outweighed by the benefits that fanon provides. This is to say nothing of the fact that removing fanon at this stage would be just as complicated, time-consuming and disruptive as it was to introduce it in the first place. I'm a firm oppose to this proposal. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 20:41, February 3, 2019 (UTC)
- What is the reason for that, though? The big issue with using blogs for fanon is that 1) multiple authors are not possible, since only the author of the blog, along with wiki administrators, are able to edit blog posts; 2) it makes organization and maintenance inanely much more difficult, since blogs seem to follow their own separate rules not seen anywhere else on MediaWiki (like forcefully adding "Category:Blog posts" to the bottom of each edit); and 3) currently fanon authors do already have the choice of posting their fanon into blogs if they want to. Most choose the fanon namespace which is the more popular option. Is there a reason why we should remove this choice? I'd like for those who are proponents of moving stuff out of the fanon namespace to explain why we should be doing this, given how the fanon namespace is incredibly popular and is not causing any issues. Right now it seems like this thread is trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 11:29, February 4, 2019 (UTC)
In 2011, I voted with the community to support the merger of the fanon and canon wikis. I don't believe my opinion has significantly erred since 8 years ago. Despite this, I am willing to listen to proposals about limiting allowed content in the fanon namespace or potential ways in which we could restructure the content. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 17:20, February 4, 2019 (UTC)
I’ll have to agree with K6ka here. It’s way more convient to have both canon and fanon articles here.
Exactly. There's no compelling argument as to why fanon should be separated. If nobody is going to come up with any sort of reason for this change then we should just close this thread. Don't fix something that ain't broke, I mean. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 00:46, February 5, 2019 (UTC)
This thread should be closed. There's nothing remotely productive about it, and it's probably going to attract a lot of trolls. This proposal doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing, and none of the arguments brought up were defended after being refuted. I can see the OP has gone on to continue editing without bothering with this thread so they obviously don't care about it any more, so none of us should be caring about it either. Close, ignore, forget about this silly proposal. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 04:32, February 14, 2019 (UTC)
I am closing this thread due to clear opposition towards this proposal. Additionally, the proposer of this idea has not responded to any comments made and even seemed to have published this thread knowing that it would get rejected (which is an unacceptable waste of the community's time). —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:45, March 1, 2019 (UTC)