Template talk:NeedsMoreFandom

How would people feel about changing the name of this template to something like "NeedsLessCanon", "TooMuchCanon", "LessCanonMoreFandom", or ....? The current name is not as clear, since a stub page would also need more fandom.--æþel 00:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Gut feeling -- I like the last one, Less Canon, More Fandom. It feels clearer to me in that it doesn't just "scold" but encourages. --Mrs. Potato Head 00:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Clarifying sounds good, but I'd be worried about using a name or indication (such as "Less Canon" or "Too Much Canon") that implied the canon part of an existing page should be cut down, instead of (I really hope) making it clear that in most instances what we're actually wishing for is for someone to add fandom sections. Since it seems to me that in most cases it's not so much that there's thousands of words of canon overview to cut down from to make it a more even distribution, but a few paragraphs of canon overview and (almost) nothing on the fandom aspects of that fandom/character/thing on pages started by a well-intentioned editor who hopes someone more knowledgeable about the fandom will come along and add to the page rather than cutting down the existing (sparse, canon-focused) info. I know I've stubbed out more than a few pages like that, and I think I remember seeing pages like that by others. I think there's the occasional page where, yes, there is way more canon info than several paragraphs and it really could be trimmed, but I think a) those are a real minority of the "stub" or "needs more fandom" pages, and b) in those cases other editors probably chime in and the trimming canon/attempts to add fandom are done semi-consensually? (Wasn't there a SGA page like that last year where that happened? Except maybe the creator felt unhappy and didn't come back?) --Sk 00:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(ETA: The thing I was vaguely (mis)remembering was actually on the main Stargate Atlantis page, in early April 2011; that editor did come back for a few SGA-related edits in September.--Sk 00:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC))

My impression was that the template was both for pages with too much canon trivia that needed to be cut back and pages with too much canon for the amount of fandom content--because it's not necessarily clear which category a page falls into if it's not your fandom. It could be that all the trivia is crucial for understanding Fandom Event X, but maybe Fandom Event X hasn't been described yet on the page. My impression was that the template was created as part of the early fear that people would use Fanlore to document canon rather than fandom.--æþel 01:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable impression/interpretation. My view is very limited by the pages I've visited, and ones I've worked on or created, but to me it seems that there are really not many pages with canon trivia that needs to be cut back, and far more pages with a little to some canon content and (almost) no fandom content, where it looks (to someone not in that fandom, as in most cases me) like what would be desirable is adding fandom stuff, not cutting the canon info to even out the ratio. I.e., I think that a few years on, the fear of editors using fanlore as a Memory Alpha type canon repository can maybe for the most part be laid to rest?

So (sorry, having a tl;dr day) how do we a) make it clearer what the "needsmorefandom" type template would these days be most useful for (desperate plea for someone, anyone, Bueller? who was ever in that fandom to add a few sentences about something -- trend, random meta link, (lack of) shipwars -- regarding the fandom for that source text, character, pairing, thing?), b) get more people to use the clarified template on pages, and maybe even c) get more people to visit and try to add a sentence or two to pages that have that new clarified template?

All questions, no answers, but anecdotally, I have several times (though I haven't been consistent about it) used the "needs more fandom" template (instead of stub) in creating character or pairing pages in the optimistic hope that they'd get lost to other editors' view (who might, unlike me, know anything about the fandom from their own or flist's memory (instead of by searching on AO3 and taking a 10-second look at newbieguide) and be able to add something) less easily among the few dozen pages marked "needs more fandom" than among the thousands of pages marked "stub" -- though I have no idea what the percentage of pages marked "stub" that get worked on by another editor within x time of the template being added is compared to the percentage of pages marked "needsmorefandom" that get worked on by another editor within that same x time of the template being added. --Sk 01:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I've only used this template on pages with TooMuchCanon, to indicate that the canon info needs to be cut down, and yes, there are quite a few pages like this. If I remember correctly, that was the reason we got the template to begin with, and the name/text was chosen to make it more encouraging than just saying not so much canon, please! A lot of people new to the wiki start out by making pages that are all about the canon. It's a typical beginners mistake. --Doro 05:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe we should consider having two templates, one that still indicates that cutting down the canon info would be good (and adding fandom info would be too) for over-canoned pages, and one that's more "please oh please anyone who knows anything about the relevant fandom's perception of Lee Adama or Arthur/Morgana or Caprica (TV series) please just add anything to it" -- one "LessCanon,MoreFandom" template, and one "PleaseForTheLoveOfFannishnessAnythingYouCouldAddAboutTheFandomWouldBeSoWelcome" (but more concise than that) template? --Sk 05:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

We already have the second one. It's called Stub. ;) --Doro 05:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well yeah, but "stub" is so ambiguous. I'd be interested in having a way to (use a template to) make it easy and fast to at least separate out pages that are stubby just in the fandom department, not necessarily in all other departments/sections of the page. There are more than 1500 pages marked "stub" on the site now, and that may make that category intimidating to try to do something to help with? (At least, it often does for me.) Maybe changing the templates from pages that are "true stubs" (have almost no info in any area/section of the page) versus pages that could use more info in one or a few specific areas might make it more appealing to for a fl editor to see if they can jump in and add a relevant snippet to the x number of Fandom Y pages marked (instead of "stub") "needs any kind of fandom info" or "got canon, got some fandom, missing fanart" for a character or pairing page, or "could use some reviews" template for a fanwork, or "could use some key fanworks" for a fan's page, or "could use some canon" like Steve Rogers/Tony Stark? (Though I may be overthinking this.) --Sk 06:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we should have more templates than just stub, since it's too huge to be useful. I could make a NeedsExamples template that could be used on Trope, Fandom, Character, Pairing, Fan, or whatever pages need more examples. We could also split the stubs category by page type the way wikipedia does: Fandom stubs, Character stubs, Pairing stubs, Fanwork stubs, etc. I don't think we should create a NeedsCanon template because that would encourage people to add too much canon. Instead, we could have something like Wikipedia's Expand_section template (except simpler) for articles that are no longer stubs, but have empty sections.--æþel 23:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I started Template:LessCanonMoreFandom.--æþel 23:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Now we have Template:LessCanonMoreFandom, would it be possible to word this one to be a little less aggressive? I've inadvertently caused offence by placing it. Espresso Addict 18:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we should retire this template and just use LessCanonMoreFandom instead. There's no significant difference in meaning between them.--æþel 19:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, that would make the choice of template clearer.--Tiyire 22:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

resetting expectations for this template

I think this template has been misapplied/overused on stub pages that don't have an active relevance-to-Fanlore problem. If a page is short and needs expanding, Template:Stub or Template:ExpandArticle can be used. If a page has too much canon or non-fandom-related info, the Template:NeedsMoreFandom or Template:LessCanonMoreFandom can be used. I'm looking at the edit history of these templates, and the NeedsMoreFandom template was created first. I apparently created the LessCanonMoreFandom template as a replacement template because NeedsMoreFandom was too vague as a warning, but then we found cases where pages weren't about "canon" but about a nonfannish topic (example: Blogging), so NeedsMoreFandom was retained, although I'm not sure anything was officially decided. Does this template need to be revised or retired? It is still potentially ambiguous.--aethel (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)