Forum:CT:Approving definitions for fanon and fan fiction

Forums > Consensus track > CT:Approving definitions for fanon and fan fiction

I mentioned in this Senate Hall topic that, with input from other Fanoneers (especially Goodwood), I wrote up an About page for Star Wars Fanon (which will replace the redirect at Star Wars Fanon:About). No one seemed to disapprove of it, so I'd like to move ahead on it. That said, there is something in there that requires community consensus: definitions for fanon and fan fiction.

The bulk of these definitions were thought up by Goodwood. What they do is separate, just for the purposes of this wiki, the meanings of fanon and fan fiction. It separates fanon into just articles, and fan fiction into narrative works with articles that correspond to them. Here are the definitions, essentially, as laid out in the About page:

• Fanon: encompasses articles on the wiki that don't directly relate to a fan fiction narrative. These function as "fan repositories," and are part of individual Fanoneers' continuities—non-fan fiction collaborations not withstanding. Examples of fanon are articles about RP characters, exercises in character development, or (as with most users) sharing your ideas with other writers without having to write a fan fiction story to go along with it.

• Fan fiction: works on the wiki made up of two different elements: literary works—short stories, novellas, novels, etc.—and articles that directly relate to corresponding literary works (e.g. Annikin Skywalker, who appeared in a literary story). These articles don't have to be sourced, though some users do it anyway. This allows fan fiction to function as more of an encyclopedia of a user's own fandom as opposed to a repository.

I will update the fanon and fan fiction pages accordingly if this passes.

This CT will last for one week, until Sunday, October 24, 2010, unless more or less time is required. All matters of the voting policy apply. Please be civil. - Brandon Rhea ^(talk) 00:36, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support (10)

1. As the proposer. - Brandon Rhea ^(talk) 00:36, October 18, 2010 (UTC)
2. I can support this. --D.W. ^{(talk)(Glorior)} 00:46, October 18, 2010 (UTC)
3. Since Bacon's pretty much accused me of coming up with all this, it would be rather crass to oppose...

GoodwoodDebating Society11,988 Edits 00:57, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

1. For wiki purposes, this works. Drewton ^{(Private Terminal)} 01:35, October 18, 2010 (UTC)
2. Yet another quick, painless codification of what we already know. — Fiolli ^{{Alpheridies University ComNet}} 02:15, October 18, 2010 (UTC)
3. Makes sense to me. Trak Nar ^{Ramble on} 03:49, October 18, 2010 (UTC)
4. It's so obvious, the voting is merely a formality. --C3PO the Dragon Slayer ^{6,000,000 forms of communication | Dragons I've Slayed} 22:41, October 18, 2010 (UTC)
5. Per above. -- ^{(Have something to say?)} 23:12, October 18, 2010 (UTC)
6. w/e--Josh Bender^Talk 23:22, October 18, 2010 (UTC)
7. Why not? --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 17:59, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Is this really necessary? What will this effect? --D.W. ^{(talk)(Glorior)} 00:41, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

• It gives users an understanding of the terms. That entire page, really, is to give new people a quick understanding of what fanon is and what fan fiction is, and how they can post and use it here. The goal is to make things as simple as possible for people, hence these two clear definitions. I also think it's a good idea to distinguish the repository elements of the wiki from the more encyclopedic elements of the wiki. - Brandon Rhea ^(talk) 00:44, October 18, 2010 (UTC)