Wikipedia:Wikifan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This proposal has failed to attain consensus within the Wikipedia community. A failed proposal is one for which a consensus to accept is not present after a reasonable amount of time, and seems unlikely to form, regardless of continuing discussion.

Proposed: That a sister project Wikifan be created to house and showcase articles related to fantasy universes and other worlds detached from reality.

This is an informal proposal to generate interest and discussion. When there is sufficient comment, a formal proposal must be made at m:Proposals for new projects. See also: m:New project policy.

This proposal does not entertain the removal of all fan-related articles. Fantasy universes may themselves be notable.

If an element of a fantasy universe has a notable effect on reality, it is itself notable and should remain part of Wikipedia. However, existence notable within a notable fantasy universe does not confer notability by association upon a mere element.

[edit] Seed articles

Examples of candidates for "move to Wikifan" (please expand this section):

• Ranks and insignia of Starfleet and similar Trekkie articles
  • but Trekkie and Star Trek should remain

• Graveler, Armaldo, and a thousand other Pokemon characters
  • but Pokemon and perhaps Pikachu should remain

• Ponda Baba, List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters, etc.
  • but not Star Wars, Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, or even Jabba the Hutt

• Cosmic Era Mobile Units, Archangel class assault ship, etc.
  • but not Gundam Seed

[edit] Discussion

I style myself a moderate inclusionist, but some articles just go too far. We recently passed the half-million article mark, but how much of that is factual information? And how much trivia copied from game manuals? Those who worry about the factual content, notability, and appropriateness of articles such as Boo Koo (and I'm one) overlook the vast quantity of fantastic articles that have been pushed into this encyclopedia by obsessive fans.

Tens of thousands of fantastic articles invite name collision, leading to yet more disambiguation pages and readers staring at their screens muttering "What the hell?"

MediaWiki is not paper, and there's plenty of room for such fancruft -- but let it be given a room of its own. — Xiong熊talk* 04:32, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

I think that there should be a separate Wiki that could include all those things that fan(anatics) might want to add for their favorite subject that are inappropriate for an encyclopedia, such as reviews, cheat sheets, detailed lists of Easter eggs, et cetera, ad nauseum, ad infinitum. I read a suggestion in the discussion on the fancruft talk page that there said there should be a Wikipedia of the Imagination (or WikiMaginarium). BlankVerse ∅ 14:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I oppose this proposal as it's currently worded. I see no need to move these articles to a separate location. Yes, we have sister wikis like Wiktionary and Wikiquote, but those deal often with the same subjects, but in a different way. I think it would be needlessly complicated to separate articles based purely on their subject. Now I find BlankVerse's suggestion for a separate wiki for material not suited for an encyclopedia, like reviews and such, to be rather intriguing. That might be worth further consideration, but I would oppose having a separate wiki as currently suggested by the top proposal. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this, fictional materials have plenty of place on Wikipedia, and the proposal is vague enough that it would mean anything that is fictional would be shunted off unless it could justify it's own existence. I found wikipedia through searching for information about fictional universes, and have found that the interrelation of fiction and fact is something quite fascinating (a minor character named after someone historic, with a link, or how someone famous was named after something fictitious) or some bit of fantastic technology that has a root in the real world. From a browsing perspective it's quite fascinating to browse through a lot of this material and see how real people and real concepts have inspired authors and how these popular fictions have influenced the real world. The proposer has a serious problem with it, expressing it quite rudely on other pages, but part of Wikipedia's appeal is that it is quite inclusive, with only some obvious exclusions of thigns that have absolutely no place like vanity pages. This isn't a paper encyclopedia where we have a tight limit of space, an inclusive attitude gives wikipedia far more depth, as various topics link together and it truly becomes an encyclopedia of all that is known. Just about anything you could think of could be found here possibly, or added eventually. Applying a double standard that some fictional materials which have a certain vague level of notability get to stay, but others go just seems to be a double standard. --Wingsandsword 08:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, Wikipedia should have an articles about fictional subjects - but one or two articles per subject. Long article may detail the subject in very specific detail. However, I have seen short individual articles about secondary and tertiary characters in a book series, various little details like one-shot jokes in a one particular episode of a TV series or specific locations or game features in a specific computer game. They are certainly important to the fans of the series but not necessarily of general interest. Enthusiasts could gather the other details - not to mention non-canon speculations - in the fan-specific environment. - Skysmith 09:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)