Forum:User-made games as fanon?

I've never encountered user-made games created as fanons, until now, namely Ariel Baron's Fanon:The Sims 3: Jurassic Park and Funkey Kong's Fanon:The Sims Stories 2 and his future fanons. There should be a policy about this. I'm not opposing the creation of these fanons; I just want to straighten the clarity of our fanon policy behind this.

I once in the past intended to make a fanon of my own, based on The Sims Stories series and Seasons. I intended to make a story of it, not the game itself, and planned to name it The Sims Seasons Stories. I told my idea to some people in IRC, but they suggested that I don't use a game name to confuse and such. In the end I named it just Seasons Stories. It's not that I was disallowed to make a game title as a fanon, but I myself considered about how the title might be confusing as well.

The current fanon policy, and all user creations so far, involve player stories, fan fiction, user-made neighborhoods, and machinimas. We never seem to consider user-made games into account before. I want to know if anyone has opinion about this. Personally, I don't really like the idea, as we can pretty much use Forum:The Sims 3 Expansion pack ideas for this kind of thing.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  05:23, August 11, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
To be honest, I don't know. I can see where you're coming from on the whole TS3 expansion pack ideas forum, it would be better if their ideas were posted in that forum. But, no harm is really done in creating a fanon expansion idea (although, how that would actually work... well, I really cannot answer that). Maybe if there was something in the fanon policy for fanon expansion packs it may shed a light, but apart from that, I can't really think of anything else. Beds (parlare - da leggere ) 09:31, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * To me, there are only a few reasons to limit additions to the fanon namespace. The first criteria is whether the content could be confused for canon; usually this issue is avoided by the 'Fanon:' prefix in the title or in the ownership templates and other standard fanon namespace templates. The second criteria is one of membership - only registered users can create permanent fanon. Next, we ensure that only good-quality fanon is introduced to the mainspace, through the work of our fanon administrators. After all this, we ensure that the article continues to meet minimum criteria, again through work done by our fanon admins.


 * The reason I've stated this all out explicitly is to see how something like fan-made expansions fits into the current framework of the fanon namespace. With all this in mind, I can't personally find a major reason to limit the creation of fanon expansion packs. It certainly wasn't the original purpose of the fanon namespace, but this could just be considered a natural evolution of the namespace over time. That said, if these packs continue, we should probably introduce a "fanon-game" or some other template, to alert readers that they're not on a real game article (as per the first criteria I listed above).


 * Tl;dr - I'm not opposed to game/expansion pack articles. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 12:36, August 14, 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe I overrated it a little, but I felt like a user-created game is... something. I feel they should take a good care of user-created games, because I don't want to see user-created games lying here and there where the creator only shared few good ideas and then got bored and decided to abandon it. If they did, I'd be strict on that, but if they developed the game fanon well, they could keep it.