Forum:Permitting user-created fanon categories

Recently, Category:Created by TheSimSupply was deleted, and I find this decision to delete the category and revert the author to be very bitey. For one thing, the author wasn't even notified of the deletion nomination. Secondly, the category was tagged for regular deletion, not a speedy deletion, but it was treated and deleted as if it were vandalism (a definite failure to assume good faith). And finally, our attitude towards this one category — created by the author with the intention of use on their own fanon pages — gives the impression that we have a de facto ban on fanon categories, which is not only not true, but is unreasonable even if it were.

I strongly suggest that the community reconsiders its decision and permits fanon categories, and encourage authors to put Property on them like any other fanon article, and I would like the community as a whole to issue the original author a formal and sincere apology.

--I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  11:33, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
May I just point out that when deleting the category, I did not look through the history and was not aware this category was created by a user, intending to use it for their own fanon creations. What I saw was a name of a well known YouTuber who is a fan of The Sims, and assumed that this user created the category for Sim creations made by this YouTuber. This is no one's fault but mine and I take full responsibility for this. There is no need for this kind of discussion - this was simply a full misunderstanding made by myself. ~ Beds  (talk - blog ) 13:02, October 13, 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Beds. This looks like a simple misunderstanding, and hardly needs to be elevated to a full community apology. Regarding the reverts to the category mentioned on TSW:APTP, I think those as well would fall under the category of misunderstanding, not a defacto or otherwise implied policy against these kinds of categories. In this case, it would be best to contact those directly involved and explain to them their error, rather than starting a community discussion only to affirm what is already widely known to be true. --  LiR talk • blog  •  contribs 14:30, October 13, 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with LiR. It was a misunderstanding, and I don't see why it needs full attention of the community. That makes it worser than it is. Sims  Plumbob.png  Player  (talk) (mistakes) 14:33, October 13, 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that it is a mistake is certainly not a problem with me, so long as it is fixed. However, and I apologize for not writing this sooner (as I wrote the original post pre-coffee), but I also wanted to put on the table a suggestion to pay more attention to the wiki's categories. Specifically, the user-created categories for fanon, as well as the fanon-version of the Sim-categories we already have for fanon.


 * I think we need to come to a conclusion on whether or not we should bureaucratically force users to have said categories on their fanon, as I've noticed a few cases where an edit war erupted over a category. I think that it's up to the fanon author to decide whether they want a category on their fanon page or not — forcing the medicine down their throat is too bureaucratic and makes the text on the Property template seemingly meaningless. While Sim automatically categorizes pages whether or not the author wants it, other categories need to be added manually. It should be the author's choice whether they want those "optional" categories or not (perhaps an optional "nocat" parameter will do). It might also be worth mentioning on TSW:FC the categories for fanon and what the author may want to do about them, and how to create categories of their own. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  16:47, October 13, 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're right, that the idea of forcing categories should be discussed. I agree with K6ka's take on it - that forcing categories is too bureaucratic, and that it should be up to the author how to categorize their fanon (except for those categories that are automatically added). I also think several editors on TSW need to re-read the property template before they hit 'edit' on another user's fanon - even with good intent, editing another user's work without their permission could be seen as unwelcome, and could run contrary to the author's wishes with their fanon. This doesn't apply to simple edits (bugfixes, typo fixes, adding mandatory templates etc.) but I think adding content, including categories, should be the job of the fanon author alone. --  LiR talk • blog  •  contribs 17:16, October 13, 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I just reverted the deletion but apparently, I was correct to delete it as the user intends to store pages on Sims and houses created by The Sim Supply. I'm unsure on what to do now. ~ Beds  (talk - blog ) 18:09, October 13, 2015 (UTC)
 * Doesn't our policy prohibit the creation of pages involving Sims and houses created by notable Simmers such as YouTubers? Now that we know the purpose of this category, I recommend we notify the user who created this category and the pages within it of our policy, and thereafter resume deletion of these pages. —  The  Tim   Man  (TSW • AH • MGW • Contribs ) 22:42, October 13, 2015 (UTC)
 * Where in policy does it say that? AFAIK it's a big no-no in the article namespace, but not in the fanon NS. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  22:45, October 13, 2015 (UTC)
 * We have every right to download Sims or households created by YouTubers or other users, and play them. But, we have no right to create a fanon of them on this wiki or anywhere else as we originally did not create or own them. But perhaps they could write about it in a blog or something? Like, in-game notes on their games and stuff? ~ Beds  (talk - blog ) 18:08, October 14, 2015 (UTC)