This HTML5 document contains 10 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Subject Item

n2:

rdfs:label

Avatar Wiki:War Room/Discontinued fanons

rdfs:comment

__NOWYSIWYG__ It's come to my attention that the {{Discontinued}} policy for fanons is in need of a slight update. I will point out here that the {{Inactive fanon}} template will not be affected by the outcome of this discussion - it should still be added to fanons that haven't been updated in over three months is the story does not meet the two requirements set out below.

n4:wikiPageUsesTemplate

n5: n6: n7: n9: n10: n11: n12:

n8:abstract

__NOWYSIWYG__ It's come to my attention that the {{Discontinued}} policy for fanons is in need of a slight update. I will point out here that the {{Inactive fanon}} template will not be affected by the outcome of this discussion - it should still be added to fanons that haven't been updated in over three months is the story does not meet the two requirements set out below. I was trawling through the Story pages category and I had a thought - we have several authors who come close to needing this template added to the top of their stories due to the time between each update. I'm going to use Minnichi's fanon as an example. There was over 5 months in which there were no new chapters - almost long enough to consider it "discontinued" under the template guidelines; yet we know that she hadn't discontinued it, mostly for the mere fact that she isn't the type of user to leave work unfinished. On the flipside, there are many stories that haven't yet reached that 6 month time frame which are more than likely discontinued due to the authors own inactivity. These pages likely will not be updated, and therefore it's pointless keeping them as active when someone will just have to add the template later. I propose two changes: 1. * If more than six months have passed between an update, yet the author is still an active contributor, the template can only be added with their consent (ie. they recognise that it will likely be many more months before they release another chapter, or have just forgotten to place the template themselves). 2. * If less than six months have passed, but more than three months and the user is inactive, the template can be added to the stories as it is unlikely (particularly with users with less than say, 200 edits) that they will return to fix the story. By "active contributor" in point 1, I mean a user who has made edits within the last month, and has before then been a constant editor to either the fanon, main, or talk namespaces. I don't believe anonymous contributors should count (and they won't as of the first). Another point is discontinued fanons without any chapters. As Lostris pointed out in this thread, it is pointless having a page that has no purpose but to announce a planned story that hasn't actually materialised. These pages do nothing and should either be deleted, which is what I have done (per the thread) to several, or added to the user's namespace as a sandbox and the categories removed. If deleting them was decided to be nonconstructive, it would probably be better to have a different policy for the anonymous users cat, which I believe the discontinued with no chapters should be deleted, with the DWNC for users moved to a sandbox. 09:02, June 21, 2013 (UTC) I don’t believ we’ve actually never had an official policy on this. The six-month “rule” is something Acer made up. I originally marked fanons as discontinued fanons after a year until Acer picked up and started doing it after six months. The discontinued template is meant to mark fanons as being very unlikely to have any further updates. In the end, there’s a case-by-case nature to it, so some fanons I’ve avoided marking in the past that I would’ve otherwise. “If more than six months have passed between an update, yet the author is still an active contributor, the template can only be added with their consent.” Ummm...are you implying that we should draw a line where the author has a say and where they don’t? As of now, the will of the author is absolute. I see no need to change that. If a fanon hasn’t been updated in three years, but the author removes the template, no other user has the right to mark it discontinued against their will. Maybe they can mark it inactive, but that’s different. The discontinued template marks fanons not likely to be updated. Even if it’s marked by “default” after so much time, any author can remove them/readd the story pages cat at the same time. As for “discontinued without chapters”, I think moving them to userspace is sufficient. -- 15:01, June 21, 2013 (UTC) Okay, I just remembered the six month part was also listed in the template guide. Still, if an author removes it themselves, they should get the benefit of the doubt. -- 15:04, June 21, 2013 (UTC) Hmm, good point with the author consent. What about the template can be added however an author is free to remove it. I mean, the stories don't actually do anywhere, but the are marked as 'active' when they aren't if that's the case. Like with Princess Yue's Second Chance, the author did come back after it was discontinued, and started it up again. I agree that they should get the benefit of the doubt, but I still think the templaet should be added. What about anonymous discontinued stories without chapters? Deletion, or moved to their userspace? 11:19, June 22, 2013 (UTC) I think that the discontinued template should only be put on fanons that authors tell are discontinued. After all, that's what discontinued means, that its not coming back. Unless they have haven't posted any means of an update for a very long time, we should stay by that definition and only put the template on when the author says they are no longer making the fanon. Inactive should be the only template we can put on another's story because it means that there just hasn't been activity lately. They do not mean the same thing and we should treat them as such. 22:06, June 25, 2013 (UTC) What if the authors have just left - become inactive? They can always remove the template, but for the sake of correct sorting and consistency, I think we need to have an actual policy on when to add or not add the template. "A very long time" is too ambiguous. 01:34, June 26, 2013 (UTC) If the author's inactive for a little while, I think only the inactive template would suffice. The discontinued template is supposed to inform the reader by marking fanons really unlikely to be updated again. If we never put it up besides when the author puts it up, it hinders its effectiveness - and if the author is absent for a really long period of time, then the template probably fits. It can always be moved to active or simply inactive status from discontinued. -- 02:52, June 26, 2013 (UTC)