Wikifiction (In-universe encyclopedia)/supporters

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

People interested[edit]

  1. 01:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  2. As proposer. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 18:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)--
  3. Clockery Fairfeld (talkenWS)
  4. Julian Amoedo (talk), french translator.
  5. Kumar Debapriya Pradhan (talk), Hindi translator.
  6. aashaa (talk), Bengali translator.
  7. YarLucebith (talk)
  8. Cekli829 (talk), Azerbaijani & Turkish translator.
  9. OR drohowa (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  10. MercurioMT (talk), I can help as Spanish translator
  11. Seonookim (talk) 06:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC), I can translate into Korean if I have the time.
  12. RainCity471. If this project is approved, it could ease the current pressure on Wikipedia with in-universe articles and excessive plot summaries.
  13. Hissifriikki (talk) Potential Finnish translator signing in
  15. TransuniversesZerortalk 05:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  16. Very strong support -Benjozork (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  17. Support Better than having this kind of nonsense clogging up --GrapedApe (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  18. C933103 (talk)
  19. Support, it'd be difficult to ensure quality, but I think it's something to seriously consider. (This comment is in memory of en:Blaze the Cat and other media articles senselessly deleted from enwiki.) --AmaryllisGardener talk 00:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  20. There is ambiguity (at least In my understanding) in verifyability and some other content policies. But I think they will get resolved in discussions. Personally, I would love contributing to such a project. --Pavan santhosh.s (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  21. Support - Wikia may already exist, but this project is ad-free version of Wikia but much faster paced and quick to load. Also, it can help editors transfer and/or insert all the fancruft from Wikipedia into this project. --George Ho (talk) 05:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  22. Support - sounds like a great idea. Enterprisey (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


  1. Mikelo Gulhi (talk) I think it is a good idea, but there are some points that do not convince me: (See the discussion)
  2. I would like to know the opinion of the people working on fiction-related portals/articles on Wikipedia projects. --Dereckson (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)'
  3. This may sound a bit silly but this sounds like a project for wikibooks. You can write all kind of fan guides, including character discriptions there. --Natuur12 (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  1. If this proposal fails, I'll work on it there. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 01:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


  1. This is redundant to Wikia, in my opinion. Considering what I've seen of coverage of fiction in Wikipedia and in Wikia, I think that there would be a truly massive quality issue. South Park is covered at a high level of quality. So is The Simpsons. It drops quickly from there. Dungeons and Dragons has massive issues. Many popular anime and manga have serious issues. The less popular fiction series (like Ultraman) are of such low quality that they are essentially unusable. Leave covering fiction in-universe to Wikia. Sven Manguard (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. I'd have to agree that this doesn't need a Wikimedia wiki to itself. As has been said, it could be done on Wikibooks. Also, the proposed title would be frequently misunderstood and people would post their own original fiction on the wiki. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
    Title-aside, isn't wikibook used for storing books instead of information about books?C933103 (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  3. Honestly, I see this as redundant-in-function to Wikibooks. Not redundant in precise form, because Wikibooks will not take specialized encyclopedias per se, but Wikibooks will gladly take a coherently organized book containing such information about a given fictional universe. We have Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter as a great example (it's a featured book!). The overall structure provided by a book seems likely to mitigate the possible tendency toward low quality of individual entries that a pseudo-encyclopedia might suffer. --Pi zero (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
    Wikibooks is a library to works.....C933103 (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  4. As a strong inclutionist, I see no need to split up Wikipedia. Better keep everything here, "under the same roof". J 1982 (talk) 12:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

    Indeed. Some things aren't allowed on Wikipedia. Although there is a form of radical inclusionism that says anything at all should be allowed in Wikipedia, this doesn't really work because various forms of content require specialized infrastructure that is not compatible with Wikipedia's infrastructure. To put it another way, those who want to move sister projects into Wikipedia generally don't realize that those sister projects. to perform their function effectively, have to do things differently from Wikipedia.

    I do note that one of the flaws of Wikipedia is its lack of common purpose; non-Wikpedian sisters are often far, far more harmonious and efficient because everyone shares a common vision of what the project's mission is. The lack of focus of Wikipedia creates squabbling and contributors working at cross-purposes; this tends to degrade the collegiality of the atomosphere of Wikipedia, creates a sense of frustration by contributors driven by ideals that get undermined by others pursuing incompatible ideals, and interferes with the quality of the output (quality of output being another important recruitment inducement). It seems likely to me that in the long term, if wikimedia is to have a future in the long term, the non-Wikipedian sisters will have to take on a more and more important role.

    Keeping in mind, my position (above) is that this is something that can and should be accomodated on Wikibooks; I don't think this material is a good fit for Wikipedia, and I think the Wikibooks model is capable of creating in this case a more useful product. --Pi zero (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

  5. Redundant to what Wikia does, without any justification other than providing free hosting for fan groups. Any content amply sourced could be in the Wikipedia articles, anything else is a frittering-away of WMF resources paid for to achieve more important goals. Orange Mike (talk)
    You probably forget that English is not the only language in the Wikimedia world and that many other Wikipedias with way harder inclusion policies than the English language Wikipedia exist (as the English language Wikipedia is rather an extreme example for a Wikipedia edition where almost every kind of garbage is kept unless it's unsourced). Vogone talk 09:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
    Content not supported by published media, non-independently verifiable, or not-well-known enough are going to be deleted from wikipedia even if they have quite a good source.C933103 (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Strong oppose per Sven Manguard. --Ricordisamoa 15:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  7. Several good reasons above; I would also fear that by not framing content in an education manner as we do with wikipedia, such content for contemporary works could start running into fair use issues ala the Harry Potter case. WMF does a good job ensuring that all project content is generally free, but the content of this one by its nature would not be and would be very problematic. --Masem (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Strong oppose per Sven Manguard. Redundant to Wikia. Zhangj1079 (Saluton!) Editing on mobile account. 14:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)