This talk page is for discussing improvements to the Dr. Robotnik (song) page.
  • Be polite and welcoming to new users
  • Assume good faith
  • Avoid personal attacks

Does this song or its creators have any connection to Sega, or is it essentially a fan-made piece? -- Supermorff 08:25, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't Intercontinental Music lab be in legal trouble if it wasn't?--Mystic Monkey sez 20:06, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
No, not necessarily. Parody is generally acceptable under fair use. And, seriously, are we saying that Sega okayed a song that compares Robotnik to "soft porn queen Sharon Stone"? -- Supermorff 17:56, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
No lawsuit so far.--Mystic Monkey sez 16:16, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
Right, and now I'm thinking that you completely misunderstood what I just said. Parody is generally acceptable under fair use. This means that you do not need to have permission from Sega to make a parody about Sonic. There would be no lawsuit. However, if you did have permission from Sega to write a song about Sonic, then they would probably keep quite strict control over it, and I'm almost certain they would not allow a comparison between Robotnik and "soft porn queen Sharon Stone", for several reasons. Therefore, I am skeptical that they had permission from Sega to make this song. That would make it a fan-made work. -- Supermorff 18:44, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

Now that I Think about it...

Supermorff I don't think I have directly asked for your oppinion on permitted certain fan articles on mainspace. Sorry about that. Since I doubt whatever I would say would change your mind on kicking this off mainspace, might as well discuss here while on the subject. Whats your thoughts?--Mystic Monkey sez 23:00, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Opposed, generally. Theoretically I don't see a problem with eventually having some notable "fan" articles on mainspace, but we have so many problems with non-notable fan articles on mainspace that I think it's important to have a very clear line: official material allowed, fan material not allowed. If we solve our problems - which I think is unlikely considering the majority of our users and the amount of fan articles we have on userspace - then we might consider allowing some articles later. -- Supermorff 14:14, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
So what exactly is the problems you wish to solve? It's just everytime you clip my mainspace articles you consider fan, makes me feel opposed even though I know you have the best intentions. But if you actually agree to an extend that Fan articles could be allowed (I say "should" but won't push my luck) then I would like to help directly with these problems.--Mystic Monkey sez 21:21, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure we've had this discussion before. If the subject of an article is created or endorsed by Sega, it is "official". If it is neither created nor endorsed by Sega, it is "fan". I make this distinction because it is clear and verifiable. Without a clear and verifiable dictinction, our decisions on which fan articles are acceptable is purely subjective and will lead to arguments and bitterness. This would be fine if I trusted the collective users of this wiki to know which fan articles were notable and which were not - Sonic Retro does this, and does it well, but we are not Sonic Retro. Our users, many of them, spend far more time creating their own characters than actually improving the encyclopedia. On several occasions users have moved fan pages back out of userspace after they'd been put there, because they "preferred" not having the page named that way. This is when the rules are clear - imagine how often this will happen when the rules are not clear.
So, the problems to resolve: can you change the behaviour of the SNN community, can you create unambiguous and clear guidelines for the inclusion of fan materials, and can you guarantee that this will not cause more problems than it solves? -- Supermorff 22:06, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
I have been trying to consider how it can work and this discussion may have been helpful to help grind it down into an agreement for all. After all you said that other places have it working so if it can work for them why not us? Also while some fan articles may not be canon, it can still be of benefitial information and thats what wiki's are about, providing information. Sure some fan information is ineccisary which is the kind I prefer to avoid. If it's generally benefitial information such as popular fan games or series that are of general and not linear interest then it's worthy. As for the problems:--Mystic Monkey sez 01:59, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
  • No, they are our members with there own individual oppinions and behavior. The behavior you expect is not shared among them, so trying to change this won't be the best aproach, but to listen to them is.
  • With help with decisions and agreements from others yes. Once basic rules are agreed on. Oppinions from our members.
  • Our current guidelines we have arn't as good anyway, just barely gettig us by but you said there are still the wrong sort of articles slipping in. With more rules on fan articles it may set an example.
For example at first I thought it was a good idea to have fan articles on specific fan characters, but then I thought that even the most popular of fan characters have a linear fandom so it maybe best to stick to shared work and information through fandom, than just individual characters. And if we can strengthen our alliance to our sibling wiki's like Sonic Fanon Wiki then there, with ther ehelp it maybe highly benefitial for us.--Mystic Monkey sez 01:59, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
This is really the wrong place to discuss this, but I honestly don't think we're ever going to agree. More rules can never clarify an issue. We have one rule: no fanfic in mainspace. That is a very clear rule, and it's heavily advertised. And people still get it wrong. How can adding more rules be any less confusing? But, hey, if you want to try and write up a set of guidelines, you're welcome to try. Be warned that I will try to find holes in it, and if I do I will expect you to re-write it until I can no longer find holes in it.
Also, for future reference, it's spelled "beneficial". -- Supermorff 19:29, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
By "I" you mean you and the rest who govern SNN? As well as the members. Also if a rule is not working, replace it, thats what I mean by adding a rule about fan articles over a rule that says no to them, if that rule itself is still not working properly.--Mystic Monkey sez 22:56, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
By "I", I mean "I". Obviously, it would be great if other people would do the same, but I can't guarantee that. If anyone can find a hole, you will need to remove that hole. I'm just letting you know that at least one person (me) will be looking.
Thats good, nice to know so to help improove this. But still be good to ask the others to help out too.
Let me see if I understand. A rule with a specific purpose is occasionally broken. Therefore, we should get rid of the rule and replace it with a rule that will be broken less frequently because it now allows people to do what they're already doing. Is that about right? By that logic, we should abolish all rules. -- Supermorff 18:41, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
If the rule is broken a few times for lulz, vandalism and all that then no, since it's a general rule that is agreed on by the members and contributers. However if the rule is broken occasionally and not just by vandals then perhaps this is a cause of misinformation which can be a bad thing, as there are fan articles even I don't agree with, but to replace the rule with a more leniant yet simular rule, sort of "update" it, could work.

Now that this discussion is on the way, how about I move this discussion to the forums? I am interested in others oppinions on this. Plus getting offtopic of the article. If you think for now it is right to clip it as a user article I won't reject. But it's nice we got a solid discussion we can all negotiate over.--Mystic Monkey sez 19:30, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.