Forum:User-made games as fanon?: Difference between revisions
→Discussion
imported>Beds No edit summary |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 8:
==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. [[User:Beds|<font color="#6B1D51">'''Beds'''</font>]] <sup>([[User_talk:Beds|<font color="#512d17">'''parlare'''</font>]] - [[User_blog:Beds|<font color="#512d17">'''da leggere'''</font>]])</sup> 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 "{{t|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. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] ~ [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 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.
----
::I've got a long-running set of articles on the Dozerfleet Database about ''Oughties Big Rapids Living Stuff''. I agree that well-made fan-created games deserve at least some sort of category of something on this wiki. I've seen packs such as ''Stellar Stuff'', and wondered why there's no wiki for them. On DeviantArt, I'm also known for ''Into the Future Conversions Stuff'', even though half of it is links to TheJim07 on MTS. On one of my blogs, I also have such packs as the ''Swappernetters Story Pack Series''. Seeing those packs get entries on this site would add an air of legitimacy to their existence. Perhaps some rules may apply for a pack to be entered in; but I fully believe that there are items and creators that deserve notice. TwistedMexi, for example, with his Create a World TS4 tool, warrants an article for that mod all by itself. This is definitely a topic for future consideration. —[[User:IvanRider|IvanRider]] ([[User talk:IvanRider|talk]]) 02:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
| |||