HRWiki talk:What HRWiki is not

From Homestar Runner Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(We're a fansite?: isn't it already defined?)
(We're a fansite?: reply to DC)
Line 24: Line 24:
::::::Something like that sounds good. We should also be sure we explain what we mean by "fanstuff" in the text under the header. W can note that it includes fan fiction, fan art and anything else I may be forgetting. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 23:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::Something like that sounds good. We should also be sure we explain what we mean by "fanstuff" in the text under the header. W can note that it includes fan fiction, fan art and anything else I may be forgetting. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 23:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::The description in the first sentence defines it as "Homestar Runner-related creative work". Does it need to be more specific than that? Often when something gets too specific, people start looking for loopholes. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 00:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::The description in the first sentence defines it as "Homestar Runner-related creative work". Does it need to be more specific than that? Often when something gets too specific, people start looking for loopholes. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 00:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 +
::::::::(Sorry, but is that sarcasm? You're asking if it should be more specific, then telling why it shouldn't be.) I like the way it is now because I don't see a way a user could get his work published ''here'' without TBC first publishing it ''[[HR:|there]]''. If there really are loopholes to that, we should make sure the page addresses them, but at the same time I don't think we should be too extreme about it, a la [[Wikipedia:WP:BEANS|WP:BEANS]]. — {{User:SamFisher1022/sig}} 14:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:40, 20 February 2008

Contents

Purpose

This is a rough draft for a proposed "What HRWiki is not" policy page. (See Da Basement for background.) The idea is to make one page that covers all the rules, regulations, policies, guidelines, etc., that encompass everything that does not belong on HRWiki pages. As this is a rough draft, I doubt it is comprehensive or complete enough to be accepted yet, and therefore any editing or discussion of the page is welcome. — SamSF%20sig.jpgFisher (Come in, Lambert.) 18:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Name

I think "HRW:NOT" should just be its shortcut and not its full name. I think something more verbose like "HRWiki:What this wiki is not" would be more appropriate. Though I'm sure better suggestions can be put forward. --Stux 20:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course I don't plan to make "HRW:NOT" the official name. That'd be pretty silly. I, and probably the officials I proposed this to, intend the page to be titled "What HRWiki is not", similar to the Wikipedia page I got the idea from. — SamSF%20sig.jpgFisher (Come in, Lambert.) 21:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Soapbox

I'm concerned about User:SamFisher1022/HRW:NOT#HRWiki is not a soapbox. I feel it to be a bit unnecessary (à la WP:BEANS) and a bit too legalistic (so no political chit chat is allowed?). We've been lenient with non-disruptive chatter on userpages, and this is pretty much covered by the user and talk page etiquette pages. I'm also trying to make sure this page doesn't sound overly legalistic which is a bit of a concern of mine at this moment. (Especially since I can see it being used in edit summaries, even.) --Stux 17:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason I requested this page was so that the main points of other policy pages, in terms of what not to do, could be collected in one place. I did draw most of the ideas from Wikipedia's page, and the soapbox thing was one of them. But now that you mention it, we don't have many soapbox-like situations (or at least not off-topic ones), and the Beans comment is a good point. That section could go. — SamSF%20sig.jpgFisher (Come in, Lambert.) 17:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
This is really more a Wikipedia thing, where people use both their userpages and articles to push POVs. While it is must certainly true of HRWiki as well, I don't think it's that relevant because our community is so markedly different from Wikipedia's. Heimstern Läufer 17:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

We're a fansite?

No joke, this came as a shock to me. When I think "fansite", I picture a forum-like website where users can freely upload content and talk about stuff. While I understand that "fansite" literally means "a site made for or run by fans", and we more than fit that definition, fan fiction and fan art are key features I imagine, and neither of those are encouraged here. So I thought we avoided calling ourselves a fansite, as it's not our main purpose. The "HRWiki is not a fansite" section has been renamed "a fan fiction site", and while this is true, I think it's too specific and too obvious. The only kind of fansite I think we could be mistaken for is one intended for uploading of art and such, and that's what should be kept under control. The old name should stay, since it keeps the general idea and allows for both art and fiction (and anything else) issues to be addressed. — SamSF%20sig.jpgFisher (Come in, Lambert.) 18:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Like you said: "'fansite' literally means 'a site made for or run by fans'", and fan fiction is what you considered and imagined all fansites to be. Like you also said, the kind of fansite we don't want to be mistaken for "is one intended for uploading of art and such". That describes the fan fiction site. As you can see the distinction may not be entirely obvious, and it would be careless to use any definition other than the correct definition. The previous title would, in fact, promote said confusion, and we want to be clear in what issues we are addressing. --Stux 18:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Um, that's not what I said. Two kinds of sites: art and fiction. A "fansite" as I imagined has both. It's obvious we're not for fan fiction, and art does not relate to that (there is clear distinction, so we could still be mistaken as a site for art). The "and such" does not describe the fiction, it describes other kinds of art like [photos of] sculptures, dioramas, etc. Plain "fansite" is the correct definition because it lets us address all kinds of things. We can be clear on the different "kinds of things" in the text under the heading. That's what it's there for. — SamSF%20sig.jpgFisher (Come in, Lambert.) 19:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I see what you're trying to say, but you're limiting too much the definition of art. Should we remove Weekly Fanstuff? And what about the rest of the wiki? It documents a work of art called Homestar Runner. To say we prohibit art is too broad. However saying we limit fan art would be more appropriate, but that's already covered in the image policy section of this page and most fan art is also more often than not, considered a subset of fan stuff. --Stux 20:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
No, no, no. That's still not what I said. Weekly Fanstuff is part of Homestar Runner. Nobody argues that. What I said is people should not use the wiki to upload their own fanstuff. It's allowed within the Image policies, but still discouraged as it's more appropriate at the Fanstuff Wiki. That's all I intend to say about fan art. I don't see fan art rules covered anywhere else on the page, and if they are really a subset of fan stuff, then what better place is there to note it than "not a fansite"? — SamSF%20sig.jpgFisher (Come in, Lambert.) 20:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Whatever connotations the word fansite has for you personally, we still are one, so we really shouldn't say that we're not. How about we say that we're "not a place for your fanstuff"? — It's dot com 22:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Something like that sounds good. We should also be sure we explain what we mean by "fanstuff" in the text under the header. W can note that it includes fan fiction, fan art and anything else I may be forgetting. Heimstern Läufer 23:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The description in the first sentence defines it as "Homestar Runner-related creative work". Does it need to be more specific than that? Often when something gets too specific, people start looking for loopholes. — It's dot com 00:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
(Sorry, but is that sarcasm? You're asking if it should be more specific, then telling why it shouldn't be.) I like the way it is now because I don't see a way a user could get his work published here without TBC first publishing it there. If there really are loopholes to that, we should make sure the page addresses them, but at the same time I don't think we should be too extreme about it, a la WP:BEANS. — SamSF%20sig.jpgFisher (Come in, Lambert.) 14:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Personal tools