Recently, a user has created several fanon pages for Sims/families that the page creator themself did not create. To my knowledge, The Sims Wiki has no rule against this, and I cannot recall a specific time that we've discussed this issue in the past, though I feel as though it has been discussed before. In any case, a couple users on the wiki have, on Discord, raised the question of whether fanon authors ought to be able to create fanon pages about characters they did not create (except for Maxis-created Sims/families that the player chooses to play with). Since this is an open-ended question, and the decision could ultimately affect some fanon pages currently in existence, I felt it was worth discussing.
So, should The Sims Wiki allow or disallow editors to create works of fanon based on Sims, families or characters that they themselves did not create (excluding Maxis-made creations)? -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 19:38, April 28, 2018 (UTC)
Discussion
Support only allowing original work to be placed in the Fanon Portal. Because the stuff in our Fanon namespace is generally considered to be the property of those who originally created it (as the {{Property}} template itself suggests), then it should only make sense that all pages created in there be of subjects that were actually created by the author of the fanon in question. Imagine if someone else created a fanon page of your Sim on this wiki and you weren't allowed to edit it because your name wasn't on the {{Property}} template! Since people who create Sims, houses, and neighborhoods/worlds in The Sims generally consider themselves to have control over the distribution of it (such as on MTS where creators can set their own policies permitting or forbidding the redistribution of their work), we should respect the original creator's wishes and not permit the creation of Fanon pages here if the subjects were not created by the author.
That being said, I don't want to be a killjoy and put an end to the free reuse of other works. Since we do have fanon pages of premade Sims and neighborhoods/worlds, it would be nice if we had some sort of a method of accomplishing this. I would say that such fanon are permitted if they include at least some degree of original content. Just as people have made fanon from canon, it is possible for them to make fanon out of fanon; it should be permissible to create a fanon page based on another fanon Sim, but it needs to have some original content (e.g. Batman (canon; superhero) --> Fatman (fanon; superhero wannabe but wastes too much time eating) --> Fatty McFatman (fanon of fanon; superhero wannabe that eats himself broke at McDonalds and then ironically needs to get a job there to make ends meet)). I'm not 100% sure of the best way to accomplish this (perhaps a templated message will work?), or what we should do if for some reason the original fanon author wants all of these recreations taken down. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:42, April 28, 2018 (UTC)
- I would probably agree. Probably say that the user should CREDIT the original maker of the content at most.. IsaiahScribblenauts - Disscuss - My Fanon 20:42, April 28, 2018 (UTC)
- I concur with k6ka's opinion. The fanon namespace is a place where users and players can use their creativity to tell stories and worldbuild in a way that's not possible elsewhere on the wiki. Users creating pages about other people's work seem to be treating the fanon namespace like a variant of the canon namespace, which I think defeats the purpose of the fanon section. Therefore, I agree that, if anything, fanon articles based on others' work should have an original spin put on it, unless the original creator specifically prohibits such derivatives. — THE TIM TAM IS MY SPIRIT ANIMAL (TSW • AH • MGW • Contribs) 01:27, April 29, 2018 (UTC)
- I would agree with K6ka opinion as a fanon page should be a area of creativity and not an area where people can just take other peoples work, unless they have permission. Reusing fanon while great also, in my opinion, defeats the purpose of being creative a feature that should be a part of fanon, rather than something that isn't. Daryurian18 (talk) 10:14, April 29, 2018 (UTC)
- As long as the original creator allows and gets credited properly, I'm fine with it. However as stated by K6ka, this is definitely against the use of the {{Property}} template itself. Perhaps some changes can be made to supplement that idea? --Frostwalker Talk - Read 02:50, May 1, 2018 (UTC)
Ok, from what I read, I now support this change because of the way Fanon is supposed to be treated as the user's own content. I feel that the fanon namespace is supposed to be for the player's created content. 
IsaiahScribblenauts 
Disscuss - My Fanon 17:35, May 2, 2018 (UTC)