Trains talk:Fan Fiction Policy

From TrainSpottingWorld, for Rail fans everywhere


I have added, unilaterally, a paragraph prohibiting profanities. If that paragraph requires amendment, please let us amend it. I have added this fast because we have a user who has scattered them widely and I wish it to cease and be brought under the policy. Tim Trent Talk to me 18:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I, as a 'crat and 'sop, second Tim's addition. Of course, anyone can second it though! Rights mean nothing ;) BG7 17:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC) 19:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll concur with the above, regardless of my status here! EdJogg 14:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I was speaking at a conference today where the BBC's guru on interactions with children was also speaking. He and I had a chat about this situation. Since we do not pre-moderate, our duty (a community duty, but one whose legal eventual liability falls on me) is to deal with things like this when we see them. "Once you know then you have to act" is a synopsis of the conversation. He is in the less awkward position of pre-moderating, which all but removes such embarrassments. Tim Trent Talk to me 16:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Errr I not the only one who has added profanitry. Some others have. For an idea of profanitry and * see [1]. What will happen to us is profanites kept being used? We would have our site closed down by the police! It's against the law to use profanitry. C45Te 16:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It is just a case, politely and firmly, of removing them or asking the editor using them to remove them when it is against this policy. No need to get unduly concerned about it. We're not concerned about legalities here, though we would be if pornography were placed here, we're concerned about making sure this place is "kidsafe" from the persepctive of even the strictest parent. Tim Trent Talk to me 19:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC).

Content and Split?

I've just added a line about content, as it seemed appropriate so to do. I wanted to add a further comment about "avoiding implying the death of a character", as that is a subject not really covered by 'adult material' that could traumatise a younger reader, but I left off so that others could give their opinions.

Having added this (8th) clause, it seems to me that we now have two distinct sub-sections of this policy. The first concerns 'Format', the structure requirements we impose (items 1 - 4); the second concerns 'Content' (items 5 - 8). Would it be apropriate to subdivide the policy to emphasise this split? All I am thinking of is ';' headings for Format and Content, plus an amended preamble:

"The policy is simple and covers Format (page structure) and Content:"

My thinking is that once the page is created and the 'Format' policy applied, only the Content clauses will be of relevance to newly-added material. (And hence it would help readers if the Policy included a suitable 'signpost'.)

Thoughts (on either)?

EdJogg 10:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Tim Trent Talk to me 11:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

When the policy is modified

We have no useful vehicle to publicise this, so I have added a "last modified date" to {{FanFic}}. This is probably the best we can do in order to publicise changes Tim Trent Talk to me 11:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)