Template talk:Fanart

Is it really needed to have this disclaimer? I mean, the sections are called fanart, so I suppose people can guess it's fan-created and non-canon ... --Homerun-chan 09:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope you're aware of what randomanon said in Talk:Guidelines about people getting confused by fanart images. The disclaimers were originally added by Mutopis as plain text, separately on every page, so I made a template, just to organize things a bit. Personally, I don't see much sense in putting a fanart disclaimer in "fanart" section, too... --kFYatek 10:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see the discussion was already going on there (it probably got swamped in the other revision notes or something). I'll go and continue there then --Homerun-chan 10:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

How do I put this delicately, we all know the difference between official and fanart, unfortunately some people need a big sign that says Stop before they drive through a crossroads. I know it sounds patronizing but just to avoid confusion on the part of visitors who are knew or maybe unaware they may require such a sign, but that is just my opinion. --Mutopis 10:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually I like your road signs metaphor because it shows pretty well the problems I see with the disclaimers. There are speed limits, stop signs, traffic lights, directions signs and so on, and in big cities it turns into a forest of signs everywhere. And yet, tourists get lost, people get speed tickets or run the lights. In the same fashion, we can put as many disclaimers as we want (see the Episode 12 page: it has a spoiler box, a speculah alert and two fanart disclaimers, plus inline spoilers), yet people will still misunderstand if they don't pay any attention.
Also, a stop sign reads "Stop", it doesn't read "This is a dangerous crossroad. Drivers may want to slow down or let other cars go first". Again, I think the "Fanart" headline is enough, or if we really wanna emphasize the fact that fanarts aren't canon, a small plain-text paragraph would do just fine. (same goes with the speculah alert btw, I'll try and make a less flashy way of tagging speculah when I have the time). I may be wrong though, and there might be a way to compromise by just making the alert less flashy or something ... --Homerun-chan 11:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Come to think of it, why not just edit this so that it can be used with speculah too? So basically, we'd have a "non-canon alert" that can apply to both speculah and fanart (and other stuff too maybe). This should reduce the number of different-looking boxes on the pages, making said pages look more streamlined, and you get to keep the fanart disclaimers --Homerun-chan 11:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Basically, it's a good idea, that's what I've seen on other wikis, too. But we don't have a "speculah alert" right now, we've got separate boxes tagging confirmed, debunked and unconfirmed speculah. And I think that's a good way to segregate them. How would you unify fanart and speculah alerts as non-canon alert, while keeping proper confirmed/debunked/unconfirmed speculah tagging? --kFYatek 12:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you did on your "Theory tags" page... --kFYatek 12:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Since I'm the one who wrote the original disclaimer for Oriko, let me explain why I did. I separated out not only fanart but official art with humorous fan-made commentary for that gallery, e.g. "or the comments accompanying them are created" like with "Yuma, hasn't anyone taught you not to go to fancy hotels with strangers?" for an official manga page that depicts Yuma with Kyouko at the hotel. That's obvious humor to someone who speaks English fluently, knows Oriko etc. But for someone who has a basic knowledge of English, hasn't read Oriko, can't make the conversation in the bubbles but can make out comment text...it's really easy to see how they could come up with the wrong conclusion about the manga, especially when the tone of most of the page is factual with serious analysis. It is truly not obvious to non-native English speakers when this kind of shift occurs, without making a complete break in section or gallery. So anyways, I made the disclaimer so I could explain how it wasn't only fanmade art for just that one page. And then...the disclaimer ended up everywhere which uh, ended up as surprise to me and wasn't my intent. It doesn't matter to me how that's changed or it if it's removed entirely. I'm quite happy with having the fanmade items and comments separated from the factual and serious analysis items. Hopefully that'll lead to less confusion. -randomanon 14:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding, my feelings on this is intent should be considered along with the source, for pages like the Oriko manga summary that we attempt to keep somewhat objective and factual. This doesn't apply to something like say theory pages where the viewer should know there'll be subjectivity and conjecture. Japan isn't stupid but remember up until recently, they were use to most pages on the wiki being serious in tone with a focus on facts or analysis based on canon evidence. The fan humor is a pretty recent development that they're learning to adjust to and some do like it btw. But, some are getting confused and frankly from their perspective, I could see why. These changes should help with that. -randomanon 14:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of fanarts and humorous content posted on serious pages, when I was rearranging the galleries for the latest episodes, it made me wonder where the limit should be. Are we okay with purely humoristic content being posted on serious pages, or do we want to keep everything somehow relevant to the page? If the former, then where is the limit that refrains the galleries of being an Image Pack #2? This is a little off-topic, but from your comment it kinda looks like an issue here --Homerun-chan 15:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Back to the topic, this is pure brainstorming here, but what do you think of posting the disclaimer only where the humoristic/fanmade nature of content isn't obvious (i.e. just like now, minus the "Fanart" sections)? I have to admit I do not have the patience nor the time to "check the water" on 2ch (do we even say that in English?), but I believe the new layout might've helped identifying non-canon content already. Can you confirm this? --Homerun-chan 15:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The disclaimer I made was really for us editors on the site to explain why I included official art in the fanart table, because of the potential for confusion I saw with the comments (hopefully my example with the hotel made that clear?) I think you're fine not having it for readers. As for the sites I visit, it's too early to say what they think. There's generally not much discussion on what's on the wiki, more like "here's the wiki link on X" and someone might comment back "oh Y is confusing, what do they mean?" or "wwww, look (link to wiki pic)" things like that. =randomanon 15:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)