• Just in case anyone is watching this page, I had a couple of questions about the policy:
  1. What is the point of protecting a fanon-loaded page? Wouldn't that prevent the author from complying with the policy and removing the fanon?
  2. Shouldn't we specify WHO should do all the notification/judgment calls about the excessiveness of fanon or the lack thereof? First, I think only admins should be telling people how much is too much, etc. Second, I think more than one admin should be required to need action on a particular user page- say, three. I shudder to think of some grudge-holding user taking advantage of this if it is not regulated. Admins at least should be somewhat trustworthy.
  3. Should we specify the number of sub-pages allowed?
  4. Shouldn't we make it clear that the types of things listed as examples of user page content aren't the only things one can put on there. By this, I mean, if a user has a good idea for a new "type" of stuff to put on a user page, we should encourage that, right?

Atarumaster88 03:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • To me this policy seems fine. Limiting the subpage amount would be a good idea - just in case. Also, some sort of size limit would be in place.
  • How about inserting the following: User pages and images within must be "safe for work": no content which is unsuitable for a family audience or would be likely to disturb or offend other users. Any illegal content or links to such material is forbidden. --Gem (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Responses:
  1. I think any userpage protection would be done to stop a user from repeatedly adding images or other content which violated our policy. It should only be a temporary measure.
  2. Admins should be in charge of taking any action on user pages violating this policy, but any user should be allowed to say "You're only allowed one fanon page, you know" or something like that. These warnings would have to comply with Wookieepedia:Civility, of course.
  3. The only subpages which really cause problems are the fanon subpages: requiring that people put it on their user page or on only one subpage seems sufficient to me for now.
  4. Atarumaster's last point is a good one: maybe someone can phrase a possible addition?
  5. Size limits really aren't the issue, as we've been told that we don't need to worry about storage space. It's more that some users are misinformed as to what this wiki is meant to be about: it's not a free webhost, not a fanfic archive, not a roleplaying message board, not a dessert topping, not a floor wax, etc., etc. These policies are more meant to show what user page content helps the project and what doesn't. We're trying to limit the effort people spend on userpages, rather than limiting the amount of work Wikia's computers have to do by hosting them.
  • Something about "safe for work" should be listed, as well as using your userpage to start or continue flamewars. I don't like the "illegal content" stipulation: not because I'm for hosting illegal content here, but because there are plenty of perfectly legal things I could put on a userpage which would be wildly inappropriate. —Silly Dan (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • How about: Any illegal or inapproprate... ? If the suggestion seems otherwise fine, you should probably add it in teh policy. --Gem (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


Sorry about the sub-section, but it was for clarity's sake.

  1. OK.
  2. I think that what we have is basically solid, and I mostly agree. However, while it is unlikely, I believe we should have safeguards to prevent an admin from getting a little crazy. Say, hypothetically, that I made a fanon subpage where, as a minor part of the plot, a character named Darth Culator was sat on by a Hutt- and then my page was blocked or reverted, etc. by Culator. (Not that I would actually do that) I mean, in this instance, it's not personal, it's not inappropriate, it's almost funny, it's on a legit fanon page, but the potential for abuse of power exists. Perhaps an appeals process could be instituted?
  3. OK.
  4. How about, Of course, Wookieepedia recognizes that users may have new innovations to add to their user pages in the form of new categories, links, etc. Any type of new addition or creativity designed for the betterment of the wiki as a whole is encouraged wholeheartedly. Atarumaster88 01:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
My responses: for number 2, that possibility might violate Wookieepedia:Civility if it's intended to insult Culator (though it seems to be an unwritten guideline that an admin shouldn't block a user for insulting them unless the blocked user has engaged in other obvious vandalism, has insulted other users, or is a repeat vandal who another admin has blocked before for similar disruptive acts.) We don't, as of yet, have a formal way to address complaints about an admin's behaviour, or handle disputes between admins, and I for one wouldn't really know where to start in coming up with such a policy. We do have Forum:Administrator's noticeboard, and users who feel that they were unfairly blocked can use {{unblock}}, but that's about all.
As for your last point, I thought that some usefulness to the project mostly covered that, but perhaps something like your wording should be added. —Silly Dan (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • On 2, I understand a little more now. I think this policy will be fine as long as the users can use the unblock template, although I still would prefer that admins warn users first before entering aggressive negotiations. I think most of them do that anyway. To me, that whole Karen Traviss thing indicated that admins are not perfect. On the last point, that's up to the community. Atarumaster88 18:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Statements against other users on your userpage are bad Edit

We've asked people to remove them in a few cases already: any suggestions for how to word such a prohibition? —Silly Dan (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  • How about a day ban? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 23:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I took down my "offensive" userbox as per the request of StarNeptune. I, however, propose a Vote Ban policy. UglukWhine Here 23:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    • No, I meant how to word the prohibition, not how to punish offenders. (Wookieepedia:Blocking policy's three rules — warnings, escalating blocks, and sudden infinibans for blatant jackassery — so far seem to cover the rules for nearly every offense.) —Silly Dan (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
      • "Making statements against other users on your userpage will be considered a personal attack, and dealt with accordingly"? StarNeptuneTalk to me! 23:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Since Wookieepedia has so many other limits... Edit

Is there a limit on how many subpages we can have?—B-Boba Fett! He'll kill us all! Jaster's Feather 23:05, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

  • There is no limit, providing they all have a specific purpose toward working on this wiki and they do not violate any site rule. Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:25, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+