Forum:CT Archive/Fanon go Boom

I see fanon long, on user pages too. I see them boom, for you and you. And I think to myself...what a useless user...hmm, yes...I think to myself...let's ban the sucka.

Seriously though, let's get rid of Fanon wholsale. The rationale behind this harkens back to Jerry Seinfeld when he was developing the aptly named Seinfeld. He wanted all the episodes to start with "The", so the writers would have to come up with an easy simple name, and would spend more time on the actual episode than the title. Same goes here. We still have people tweaking their fanon more than they contribute. Tchah! What's the point? There's a whole Wiki full of flashing sigs and tripped out formatting that they could use. No one here actually reads it, do they? Get it out of here, I say, so as to get people to focus more on the task at hand, and less on their Gary Stus and their Mary Sues and their W. G. Graces.

Support

 * 1) I should think so. .  .  .  .  23:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2)  Redemption [[Image:Redemptionusersymbol.png|20px]] Talk 23:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) BE GONE! -- Ozzel 23:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4)  Stake black   msg 23:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Lord Hydronium 01:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Imp http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/e/e5/ATATatarismall.png 23:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I think the limits on userpage edits meet our goals sufficiently at this time. If it turns out they don't, we can revisit this later. jSarek 23:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) DarthMRN 00:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) No! Don't we have a rule saying that you need a minimum number of article edits? Can we at least consider things case-by-case? Because while I do have a fanon bio, I only have about 150 edits on it, compared to 2500 article edits and 3000+ edits overall. Sorry if I sound whiny by the way. Chack Jadson 00:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Per jsarek. We don't want to become a funless, dead, empty husk of a Wiki.  Gonk  ( Gonk! ) 01:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) User page fan fiction is the most useless thing on this wiki next to image edit wars, ridiculously specific userboxes, and questions over whether Grand Admiral Thrawn could beat Boba Fett in backgammon (best two out of three). Having said that, an absolute ban on the practice is probably going too far. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Per jSarek's and Gonk's comments above, and per DarthMRN's comment below. Adamwankenobi 01:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Compromise
I don't like the edit number rule, because percentages don't mean anything if you do 90% of something as one big edit, like I do. That said, I don't think fanon bios need to be be completely obliterated, so how about a total word limit? Say 600? CooperTFN 02:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) CooperTFN 02:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments
While I'm not a userpage fanon writer myself, I can imagine how people who spend every friggin waking hour at this site would like some variation from the normal editing, and to make their personal domain a little more shiny. All work and no play doesn't work elsewhere. There is no reason to think that it will here. It's like having a signature and an avatar on a forum. And the Internet isn't running out of space. DarthMRN 00:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're not having fun editing, go to the Fanon Wiki. They love it over there. .  .  .  .  01:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)