Wikipedia talk:Fan analysis

Essays Low‑impact

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

First blush - we need a better definition of what fan fiction is, to make sure plot summaries aren't included in that. But I do agree, this should be an obvious non-free content policy. --MASEM 07:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia already doesn't allow fanfiction. No article is a story, or at the least shouldn't be. It does allow articles on fanfiction (notable ones, anyway), which is different. This proposal seems to have confused that. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Penguin is right, fanfiction is generally seen as distinctly different to fan analysis. However, even with renaming the article, the intent as currently worded is too strict, so as to prevent brief encyclopaedic coverage. For instance, a media franchise with many series within, or a series with seasons or episodes written and aired outside of chronological order would both benefit from a succinct section detailing their timelines. Such things can be done with proper sourcing and of appropriate depth so as to to be encyclopaedic. Similar can be said of other material which can stray into the realm of fan analysis, but may also be kept to only verifiable information. It certainly is not as simple as just saying "it all should go". I do agree, however, that most such material is far too long and far too in-depth. LinaMishima (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the point that should be addressed here is "fan analysis", which, of course, violates WP:OR without any issue. But then I go back to my point (devil's advocate), at one point does summarizing from a higher level go from "summary" to "analysis"? Case in point is the Back to the Future timeline (which I believe lead to this suggested proposal). While 90% of the article is stating in-universe timeline events, much of the article is based on synthesizing from one scene in the second movie that any time travel backwards creates a new timeline. That's perfectly fine to talk about in the context of BTTF2, but then the article expands on that to assume it is true for all 3 movies (and the subsequent 7-8 timelines created). That is analysis/synthesis prohibited by WP:OR. On the other hand, if I were to provide an overall season-by-season general theme of, say, Lost, while I would need to combine some events, no analysis or synthesis is made, thus appropriate for that. (Then, of course, going into what the numbers or the polar bear means, without sources, is OR). So I think if we need to state this above what WP:OR already gives, it needs to be tailored in that direction. --MASEM 15:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but again, that would be a whole different issue than what this is meant to propose, and would likewise already be well-covered by OR anyway. Granted, BTTF timeline is a tricky issue in that regard, but not something that this proposal would cover in either case. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 18:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the title of this page and re-wrote it. It's an essay now, not a policy proposal. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]