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)
 * Comment -- There was once an anonymous contributor, and he created a page about a Sim from 2 famous YouTubers. Those YouTubers most likely didn't gave that person any permission to make a fanon about their Sim. That's a great example or users making fanon pages without the permission of the person or YouTuber that is the rightful owner.  Sims Plumbob.png  Player  (talk) (mistakes) 18:10, October 14, 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment — While this discussion has dried up / may be drying up, I just wanted to point out that it was a bit of a slight misunderstanding on my part as well, and that it seemed to be a category for stuff created by a well known YouTube channel. If I can recall correctly, that practice isn't usually permitted since there's no evidence that the said YouTuber gave their permission for a category featuring their stuff to be created on this wiki.
 * I agree with what Beds and the Tim Man have said, but if we were to keep the category, wouldn't it be better if we re-arranged the category, removing the fanon property template, and replace it with a handwritten message? I'm not saying that it's a rule or anything, but that template is generally reserved for the fanon namespace, and while it may not categorise as a fanon page, given that it's a category, not a page, I feel that it may confuse people. ―  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 06:16, October 25, 2015 (UTC)

Concluding discussion
There are a few tangents in this discussion, but not much in the way of firm conclusions for the major issues addressed. Therefore, I would like to close out the thread by listing out some general observations, based on the discussion here, as well as current wiki policy and practice
 * "Forcing" users to add categories - There seems to be no widespread support on the community in favor of adding manually-added categories to user fanon without the author's permission. As the currently-established precedent is that, short of things that violate policy, authors are free to write their fanon as they see fit, it's a natural extension that they should also be able to decide how to categorize their pages (except for those that are automatically added by the Sim templates). Therefore, the current guideline for editors is to not add categories to another person's fanon unless that person requests the addition.
 * Adding fanon pages for content created by "notable persons" - The Sims Wiki has a policy regarding main namespace pages devoted to content created by notable people, such as "YouTube Celebrities" and the like. As mentioned by K6ka in the discussion, the creation of those pages in the main namespace is not allowed. However, this rule up to now has not applied to the fanon namespace. So there remains an open-ended question: do we allow or disallow users to create works of fanon based on Sims/families/households that they themselves did not create and that were not created by Maxis/EA? There is no consensus in this thread either way, so right now there can be no prohibition against this practice. If this is a significant issue, it should be discussed in its own thread and a consensus should be reached there.
 * Ownership of fanon categories - As of now, users have not been given any established "property rights" over categories. We de facto allow ownership of templates that are used to organize fanon pages, so it seems a natural progression that we would allow the same de facto "ownership" of the categories as well. In other words, based on current wiki practice, I believe that users should be allowed to create categories exclusively for their fanon, and to be allowed to control how those categories are used and organized. However, at the same time, the community has a vested interest in maintaining an orderly category namespace. Therefore, I believe that the community does have the right to edit fanon-focused categories with the intent to properly organize them within our category structure.


 * I am leaving this thread open for now, to allow other users to voice their opinion about my interpretations of the situation. Please respond if you have any questions or issues with what I've written, or any opinion you wish to share. --  LiR talk • blog  •  contribs 15:09, March 11, 2016 (UTC)