This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete "Fan music, Fan film, Fan gaming, Fan publications, Fan fiction".

  • If you are suggesting a page for deletion, add your initial rationale to the section "Deletion rationale".
  • If you want to discuss this suggestion, add comments to the section "Discussion".
  • If a consensus has been reached, an administrator will explain the final decision in the section "Admin resolution".

In all cases, please make sure to read and understand the deletion policy before editing this page.

Deletion rationale Edit

Fanon has no place here and this entry is stretching it to it's limit. We can acknowledge that fan creations exist but beyond that it needs no other mention. Especially since individual/unlicensed material has no end. — Morder (talk) 01:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion Edit

I'm up for a possible merge into a fanon page or something similar though we would have to dispense with the list of entries... — Morder (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - Some of some of this should be on the Trekkies pages, for the info that was in those films, and the Star Trek parodies and pop culture references pages, as that seems to cover the music page completely. The rest could go under the aforementioned page (main), as that seems to already be fanonish. - Archduk3:talk 02:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete all except fan films, which should only include the films in which Trek actors or crew have been involved in, and even that info could be merged with the pop culture page. The others should be deleted as there is no end to the creations that could be mentioned there.--31dot 22:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Good point 31dot - I did forget that quite a few actors appeared in fan films. — Morder (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - If they're going to be removed, they should all be removed. It doesn't matter that actors appeared in them, wrote them, etc. They're still fan works. -- sulfur 11:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. I think it is acceptable for purposes of completeness to document any fan work that "official" Trek people are involved in, as that makes it different than just a simple "fan work" that only fans acted in. It suggests more recognition of it. That said, if the page goes, such work should be mentioned on the actors/crew pages(which I believe it is, for the most part)--31dot 22:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Though I initially agreed with you, 31dot, I have to say that limiting it to the actor pages should be sufficient. They are still fan works - even if those fans are actual actors from the series, they didn't get paid for it by paramount (or whoever actually pays their wages) and the films are still unauthorized, though permitted, by paramount. It also brings up the possibility for other actors, who aren't as big as first billed actors or anyone else who also appear in fan works to expect their stuff to get posted here. In addition to music performed by actors or fan fiction written by them, as well. I think a single page acknowledging fan works should be fine but limited in scope. — Morder (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I can live with that, just stating my opinion. :)--31dot 22:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
And I applaud you, good sir! :) I'm not a fan of fan fiction at all. (I don't care for novels, as well, because I just view them as authorized fan fiction - I still read them, just very few) When fan related stuff appear on this site I get wary because there's no end to fan created crap while there is a theoretical "limit" (they could make up more stuff if they want) to authorized material. (Sorry about going off topic - I'm done now) — Morder (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment - "...they didn't get paid for it by paramount" brings up a good point about the fan films. As far as I know a member of the SAG has to be paid, even if that pay is then "donated" back to the production (no idea if that's what happened, though if the actor's weren't "paid," I think SAG would have made a fuss), but if the fan work has SAG actors in it, doesn't that mean it could be listed on the Star Trek parodies and pop culture references (film) page? - Archduk3:talk 22:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
A SAG member only has to get paid if the production in question uses SAG as a source. (They have a contract to hire SAG members) Paramount doesn't have to pay the actors at all unless it's an official production, and they're the ones that make the difference between fan work or official production. It's still fan fiction and not any official production by any company and still wouldn't go, in my opinion, on the pop culture references page. It's different from something like SNL or an actual production by a television studio. — Morder (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
this explains how it works in more detail but the end result is that they don't need to be paid. "All members of the Guild agree to work only for producers who have signed contracts with SAG." though a fan film is probably exempt as it's not a real production. — Morder (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Just wondering where the line would be there (better not inform SAG just in case ;) ), as people could argue what a Film or Television show is. I fear the day when a (canon) internet episode comes out. - Archduk3:talk 23:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Canon is simple. If paramount produces the film/show in question, it's canon. — Morder (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
It is for now, but if this happens, I think there would be a revision of that policy by Paramount. - Archduk3:talk 23:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
No, CBS owns Paramount (or Viacom or whatever). Nothing has changed. — Morder (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The fan community is a very, very large part of Star Trek in general so Memory Alpha should have some sort of fan productions page, or something similarity titled wherein a discussion about the general areas (with perhaps a few more well known examples) to be mentioned. I say this to respond to an earlier comment about memory alpha being a 'complete' document on all things to Star Trek. Well, as I said, the fan community is a very large part of it, but I can, however, agree that perhaps a page for fan music, fan films, etc... is a bit much. Just do a page titled "Fan Works" or "Productions" whatever, with different sections to describe the type of work. SO, I guess I am supporting a type of Merge. As for the potential webseries, while I understands the fears or cautions of it, if it's officially produced It is cannon (even if we don't like it...), whether it's a film, or a tv show, or a webseries. --Terran Officer 00:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The music page is redundant, as all that information is already elsewhere, or soon will be, as any band that released an album cane be on the S.T.P.a.P.C.R. (music) page. As for the rest, since we have pages for every book, comic, and game released, even though that really should be covered at MB, with maybe a note in a apocrypha section of a article, I don't think Merging some of this information into one page would be inconsistent with MA policy. Especially since it seems some of the fan games are more "official" then the rest, and both Trekkies and Trekkies 2 could be considered fan films, and they have their own pages as well. (There also seems to be a misunderstanding, I'm not suggesting that under the current policy at Paramount, and MA, that it wouldn't be canon; I just think that if a web series was produced, Paramount would not make it canon, based on the history with TAS and other series' webisodes, while MA policy would remain that it is, thus making a very interesting situation.) - Archduk3:talk 01:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
As far as the entry "Fan Film" is concerned, I think we should let it stand. It is written from a real world perspective, so that can't hurt...It can serve as a useful intermediary, especially in the Apocrypha sections, by linking to Wiki's outside MA, especially since the entry is linked to already on several occasions.--Sennim 22:17, December 5, 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Mentioning they exist is important. Those that are considered notable examples of each one, should be listed also. Dream Focus 04:49, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep all For the reasons Dream Focus mentioned. --Golden Monkey 14:07, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: We've moved into the "Wrap up" section immediately below. Continue your thoughts and discussion there.

Wrap upEdit

In summary- there seems to be consensus that Fan music, fan gaming, fan publications, and fan fiction should be deleted. Fan films doesn't seem to have that yet from what I can tell. Unless there is opposition, I would be willing to delete those and either keep this discussion going for fan films or just end it totally with a keep for now. I won't do anything immediately.--31dot 17:37, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

I stated "delete", but I meant "merge" where that was mentioned. Sorry for the typo.--31dot 17:41, December 17, 2009 (UTC)
Merge, for films as well. - Archduk3:talk 19:10, December 17, 2009 (UTC)
Fan film and Fan fiction should stay. They describe the phenom, not the specifics. That's all any of these articles should describe. Maybe merge them all into one that collects all of the basics. -- sulfur 23:42, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

"Fan projects" perhaps?--31dot 23:47, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

I've revised my opinion slightly. We should merge all of these pages into one, which would be located at "Fan fiction". My suggestion for a final page layout and content is here. Thoughts? -- sulfur 13:27, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
You've removed the third funniest thing on MA.... but alright. --bp 14:50, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
This has been going on for so long, but in the end, the first comment has already been spot-on. We want to acknowledge that fan-produced works exist, and what their connection to Star Trek is, but we don't want to be an archive (or web directory) for each and every individual fan work. That's what other wikis do better than we ever could. I like the combined "explanation article" that sulfur presented, and think we should go for it. -- Cid Highwind 15:12, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Admin resolution Edit

  • I've gone ahead and done the work. It's something we should have dealt with 2+ years ago. All five have been merged into one, the article turned into an encyclopedic discussion of the phenom, and the examples removed outright, other than a few covers of items that are actually relevant for one reason or another. Have fun. -- sulfur 15:29, March 11, 2010 (UTC)