Fan Creation talk:Sarmy - Revision history

imported>Ryangibsonstewart: Talk:Sarmy moved to Fan Creation talk:Sarmy: moving out of main namespace and into Fan Creation namespace

2010-02-12T02:59:17Z

Talk:Sarmy moved to Fan Creation talk:Sarmy: moving out of main namespace and into Fan Creation namespace

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:59, 12 February 2010
(No difference)

imported>Ryangibsonstewart: Talk:Sarmy moved to Fan Creation talk:Sarmy: moving out of main namespace and into Fan Creation namespace

2010-02-12T02:59:17Z

Talk:Sarmy moved to Fan Creation talk:Sarmy: moving out of main namespace and into Fan Creation namespace

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:59, 12 February 2010
(No difference)

imported>Admin at 01:43, 10 August 2007

2007-08-10T01:43:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:43, 10 August 2007
Line 8:		Line 8:
	**** I think the fan powers was a slightly different discussion. In that instance it was the information itself which was being credited to an individual which isn't really the wiki way. In this instance we're just including information on who is credited for creating the specific group. I'm personally on the fence and see the validity to both sides. Personally, I think if a group's founding can be reliably attributed to a specific person or persons then it's not bad if we include that information. While we might not like the idea of people taking credit for an article here (since articles are collaborative efforts) if a few people are responsible for founding a group that we're documenting I don't really see anything wrong with including that information at least unless it causes any arguments. I agree that fan creations should be supported by many people, but I think it also makes sense to credit the originator(s). Plus it's been like this for [[The Marked]] for quite a while, so until it causes some real issues I think it's been an interesting academic discussion, but that we should let the founder info remain for this article. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 21:28, 9 August 2007 (EDT))		**** I think the fan powers was a slightly different discussion. In that instance it was the information itself which was being credited to an individual which isn't really the wiki way. In this instance we're just including information on who is credited for creating the specific group. I'm personally on the fence and see the validity to both sides. Personally, I think if a group's founding can be reliably attributed to a specific person or persons then it's not bad if we include that information. While we might not like the idea of people taking credit for an article here (since articles are collaborative efforts) if a few people are responsible for founding a group that we're documenting I don't really see anything wrong with including that information at least unless it causes any arguments. I agree that fan creations should be supported by many people, but I think it also makes sense to credit the originator(s). Plus it's been like this for [[The Marked]] for quite a while, so until it causes some real issues I think it's been an interesting academic discussion, but that we should let the founder info remain for this article. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 21:28, 9 August 2007 (EDT))
	***** I never noticed it on [[The Marked]] because I don't really frequent that page. I see what you're saying, but I just worry about opening the door to people trying to take credit for a creation, or for a few people to be singled out. If a group, for instance, has 60 members, each one would have some form of contribution to the group, even if their only contribution is ''being'' a member. Singling out a few members, even if they were instrumental in starting a group or a creation, seems to ignore all the other contributors. But you're right, my bigger issue is with credit on [[fan powers]], though this tangential issue certainly applies...and really ''is'' an interesting academic discussion. I hope we haven't turned people off, but I guess some individuals will be offended regardless. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 21:37, 9 August 2007 (EDT)		***** I never noticed it on [[The Marked]] because I don't really frequent that page. I see what you're saying, but I just worry about opening the door to people trying to take credit for a creation, or for a few people to be singled out. If a group, for instance, has 60 members, each one would have some form of contribution to the group, even if their only contribution is ''being'' a member. Singling out a few members, even if they were instrumental in starting a group or a creation, seems to ignore all the other contributors. But you're right, my bigger issue is with credit on [[fan powers]], though this tangential issue certainly applies...and really ''is'' an interesting academic discussion. I hope we haven't turned people off, but I guess some individuals will be offended regardless. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 21:37, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
			****** Check out my comment on the [[Heroes_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal#Credit_on_Fan_Creations\|Community Portal talk page]]. I basically compare this to how we credit writers and directors for episodes because they're some of the primary people involved, yet we don't also document everyone down to the grips and mixers and such. In the end I think we should leave the founder info unless it causes any real problems in the future. I, too, hope people haven't been scared off. Long discussions are the way of wikis and the price we pay for the fairness of a consensus-based system. :) ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 21:43, 9 August 2007 (EDT))

imported>Ryangibsonstewart at 01:37, 10 August 2007

2007-08-10T01:37:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:37, 10 August 2007
Line 7:		Line 7:
	****** The larger discussion of crediting individuals for fan creations can be found [[Heroes Wiki talk:Community Portal#Credit on Fan Creations\|here]]. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 18:16, 8 August 2007 (EDT)		****** The larger discussion of crediting individuals for fan creations can be found [[Heroes Wiki talk:Community Portal#Credit on Fan Creations\|here]]. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 18:16, 8 August 2007 (EDT)
	**** I think the fan powers was a slightly different discussion. In that instance it was the information itself which was being credited to an individual which isn't really the wiki way. In this instance we're just including information on who is credited for creating the specific group. I'm personally on the fence and see the validity to both sides. Personally, I think if a group's founding can be reliably attributed to a specific person or persons then it's not bad if we include that information. While we might not like the idea of people taking credit for an article here (since articles are collaborative efforts) if a few people are responsible for founding a group that we're documenting I don't really see anything wrong with including that information at least unless it causes any arguments. I agree that fan creations should be supported by many people, but I think it also makes sense to credit the originator(s). Plus it's been like this for [[The Marked]] for quite a while, so until it causes some real issues I think it's been an interesting academic discussion, but that we should let the founder info remain for this article. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 21:28, 9 August 2007 (EDT))		**** I think the fan powers was a slightly different discussion. In that instance it was the information itself which was being credited to an individual which isn't really the wiki way. In this instance we're just including information on who is credited for creating the specific group. I'm personally on the fence and see the validity to both sides. Personally, I think if a group's founding can be reliably attributed to a specific person or persons then it's not bad if we include that information. While we might not like the idea of people taking credit for an article here (since articles are collaborative efforts) if a few people are responsible for founding a group that we're documenting I don't really see anything wrong with including that information at least unless it causes any arguments. I agree that fan creations should be supported by many people, but I think it also makes sense to credit the originator(s). Plus it's been like this for [[The Marked]] for quite a while, so until it causes some real issues I think it's been an interesting academic discussion, but that we should let the founder info remain for this article. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 21:28, 9 August 2007 (EDT))
			***** I never noticed it on [[The Marked]] because I don't really frequent that page. I see what you're saying, but I just worry about opening the door to people trying to take credit for a creation, or for a few people to be singled out. If a group, for instance, has 60 members, each one would have some form of contribution to the group, even if their only contribution is ''being'' a member. Singling out a few members, even if they were instrumental in starting a group or a creation, seems to ignore all the other contributors. But you're right, my bigger issue is with credit on [[fan powers]], though this tangential issue certainly applies...and really ''is'' an interesting academic discussion. I hope we haven't turned people off, but I guess some individuals will be offended regardless. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 21:37, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

imported>Admin at 01:28, 10 August 2007

2007-08-10T01:28:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:28, 10 August 2007
Line 6:		Line 6:
	***** A famous men said : "With television, everybody will have is quarter of glory", so does internet :) (Mhh not sure if what I just said is understandable) --{{User:FrenchFlo/sig}} 13:05, 7 August 2007 (EDT)		***** A famous men said : "With television, everybody will have is quarter of glory", so does internet :) (Mhh not sure if what I just said is understandable) --{{User:FrenchFlo/sig}} 13:05, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
	****** The larger discussion of crediting individuals for fan creations can be found [[Heroes Wiki talk:Community Portal#Credit on Fan Creations\|here]]. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 18:16, 8 August 2007 (EDT)		****** The larger discussion of crediting individuals for fan creations can be found [[Heroes Wiki talk:Community Portal#Credit on Fan Creations\|here]]. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 18:16, 8 August 2007 (EDT)
			**** I think the fan powers was a slightly different discussion. In that instance it was the information itself which was being credited to an individual which isn't really the wiki way. In this instance we're just including information on who is credited for creating the specific group. I'm personally on the fence and see the validity to both sides. Personally, I think if a group's founding can be reliably attributed to a specific person or persons then it's not bad if we include that information. While we might not like the idea of people taking credit for an article here (since articles are collaborative efforts) if a few people are responsible for founding a group that we're documenting I don't really see anything wrong with including that information at least unless it causes any arguments. I agree that fan creations should be supported by many people, but I think it also makes sense to credit the originator(s). Plus it's been like this for [[The Marked]] for quite a while, so until it causes some real issues I think it's been an interesting academic discussion, but that we should let the founder info remain for this article. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 21:28, 9 August 2007 (EDT))

imported>Ryangibsonstewart at 22:16, 8 August 2007

2007-08-08T22:16:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:16, 8 August 2007
Line 5:		Line 5:
	**** I thought it was already agreed that fan powers user information was to be removed. I'm not sure why that hasn't been done.--[[User:MiamiVolts\|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts\|talk]]) 12:52, 7 August 2007 (EDT)		**** I thought it was already agreed that fan powers user information was to be removed. I'm not sure why that hasn't been done.--[[User:MiamiVolts\|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts\|talk]]) 12:52, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
	***** A famous men said : "With television, everybody will have is quarter of glory", so does internet :) (Mhh not sure if what I just said is understandable) --{{User:FrenchFlo/sig}} 13:05, 7 August 2007 (EDT)		***** A famous men said : "With television, everybody will have is quarter of glory", so does internet :) (Mhh not sure if what I just said is understandable) --{{User:FrenchFlo/sig}} 13:05, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
			****** The larger discussion of crediting individuals for fan creations can be found [[Heroes Wiki talk:Community Portal#Credit on Fan Creations\|here]]. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 18:16, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

imported>FrenchFlo: useless and probably grammatically uncorrect comment ! (Just to say i'm still here, standby!!)

2007-08-07T17:05:28Z

useless and probably grammatically uncorrect comment ! (Just to say i'm still here, standby!!)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:05, 7 August 2007
Line 4:		Line 4:
	*** It's a good point. I'm curious what others think as well. Since this covers fan creations in general and will affect standards for multiple articles if you want to move the discussion to the community portal to try to get more feedback that might be helpful. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 12:50, 7 August 2007 (EDT))		*** It's a good point. I'm curious what others think as well. Since this covers fan creations in general and will affect standards for multiple articles if you want to move the discussion to the community portal to try to get more feedback that might be helpful. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 12:50, 7 August 2007 (EDT))
	**** I thought it was already agreed that fan powers user information was to be removed. I'm not sure why that hasn't been done.--[[User:MiamiVolts\|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts\|talk]]) 12:52, 7 August 2007 (EDT)		**** I thought it was already agreed that fan powers user information was to be removed. I'm not sure why that hasn't been done.--[[User:MiamiVolts\|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts\|talk]]) 12:52, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
			***** A famous men said : "With television, everybody will have is quarter of glory", so does internet :) (Mhh not sure if what I just said is understandable) --{{User:FrenchFlo/sig}} 13:05, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

imported>MiamiVolts: Re: fan powers user info

2007-08-07T16:52:47Z

Re: fan powers user info

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:52, 7 August 2007
Line 3:		Line 3:
	** The only other fan creation page that has any kind of user information on it is [[fan powers]], and I believe it all should be removed for a number of reasons (see [[Heroes Wiki talk:Administrators#Fan Creation Changes\|discussion]]). I don't see a need for assigning credit to individuals for a group--it seems very misleading to me. There are lots of people, I'm sure, who contribute to Sarmy and helped bring about its inception (and if there's not a lot of people, it probably doesn't belong as a fan creation). To single out a few lead members, no matter the magnitude of their contributions, seems vain to me. I believe I have more contributions to Heroes Wiki than any other member, but I would never dream of putting my name on the front page, or on a Wikipedia article about Heroes Wiki (as I'm sure others probably feel the same way). But maybe I'm wrong about that, and maybe people want to have credit for their work--I just feel it's silly to point out a few key members, and ignore others who contribute. It'd be easier to just leave out all names altogether. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 12:41, 7 August 2007 (EDT)		** The only other fan creation page that has any kind of user information on it is [[fan powers]], and I believe it all should be removed for a number of reasons (see [[Heroes Wiki talk:Administrators#Fan Creation Changes\|discussion]]). I don't see a need for assigning credit to individuals for a group--it seems very misleading to me. There are lots of people, I'm sure, who contribute to Sarmy and helped bring about its inception (and if there's not a lot of people, it probably doesn't belong as a fan creation). To single out a few lead members, no matter the magnitude of their contributions, seems vain to me. I believe I have more contributions to Heroes Wiki than any other member, but I would never dream of putting my name on the front page, or on a Wikipedia article about Heroes Wiki (as I'm sure others probably feel the same way). But maybe I'm wrong about that, and maybe people want to have credit for their work--I just feel it's silly to point out a few key members, and ignore others who contribute. It'd be easier to just leave out all names altogether. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 12:41, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
	*** It's a good point. I'm curious what others think as well. Since this covers fan creations in general and will affect standards for multiple articles if you want to move the discussion to the community portal to try to get more feedback that might be helpful. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 12:50, 7 August 2007 (EDT))		*** It's a good point. I'm curious what others think as well. Since this covers fan creations in general and will affect standards for multiple articles if you want to move the discussion to the community portal to try to get more feedback that might be helpful. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 12:50, 7 August 2007 (EDT))
			**** I thought it was already agreed that fan powers user information was to be removed. I'm not sure why that hasn't been done.--[[User:MiamiVolts\|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts\|talk]]) 12:52, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

imported>Admin at 16:50, 7 August 2007

2007-08-07T16:50:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:50, 7 August 2007
Line 2:		Line 2:
	* Hmm. I think there's some information about the founding of [[The Marked]]. I'm personally not opposed to limited founder information as it's background on how the group was started, but an extended user list would be excessive. You do have a point that the relationship fan pages don't refer to any founders, but in those instances I'd consider them to be more generic entities focusing on the relationship rather than the group. In the case of [[Sarmy]] and [[The Marked]] the focus is on the specific group itself so it might make a little more sense to include some founder info. I think it's definitely worth discussing, I don't really have a strong feeling either way as long as in the end we're consistent. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 12:31, 7 August 2007 (EDT))		* Hmm. I think there's some information about the founding of [[The Marked]]. I'm personally not opposed to limited founder information as it's background on how the group was started, but an extended user list would be excessive. You do have a point that the relationship fan pages don't refer to any founders, but in those instances I'd consider them to be more generic entities focusing on the relationship rather than the group. In the case of [[Sarmy]] and [[The Marked]] the focus is on the specific group itself so it might make a little more sense to include some founder info. I think it's definitely worth discussing, I don't really have a strong feeling either way as long as in the end we're consistent. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 12:31, 7 August 2007 (EDT))
	** The only other fan creation page that has any kind of user information on it is [[fan powers]], and I believe it all should be removed for a number of reasons (see [[Heroes Wiki talk:Administrators#Fan Creation Changes\|discussion]]). I don't see a need for assigning credit to individuals for a group--it seems very misleading to me. There are lots of people, I'm sure, who contribute to Sarmy and helped bring about its inception (and if there's not a lot of people, it probably doesn't belong as a fan creation). To single out a few lead members, no matter the magnitude of their contributions, seems vain to me. I believe I have more contributions to Heroes Wiki than any other member, but I would never dream of putting my name on the front page, or on a Wikipedia article about Heroes Wiki (as I'm sure others probably feel the same way). But maybe I'm wrong about that, and maybe people want to have credit for their work--I just feel it's silly to point out a few key members, and ignore others who contribute. It'd be easier to just leave out all names altogether. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 12:41, 7 August 2007 (EDT)		** The only other fan creation page that has any kind of user information on it is [[fan powers]], and I believe it all should be removed for a number of reasons (see [[Heroes Wiki talk:Administrators#Fan Creation Changes\|discussion]]). I don't see a need for assigning credit to individuals for a group--it seems very misleading to me. There are lots of people, I'm sure, who contribute to Sarmy and helped bring about its inception (and if there's not a lot of people, it probably doesn't belong as a fan creation). To single out a few lead members, no matter the magnitude of their contributions, seems vain to me. I believe I have more contributions to Heroes Wiki than any other member, but I would never dream of putting my name on the front page, or on a Wikipedia article about Heroes Wiki (as I'm sure others probably feel the same way). But maybe I'm wrong about that, and maybe people want to have credit for their work--I just feel it's silly to point out a few key members, and ignore others who contribute. It'd be easier to just leave out all names altogether. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 12:41, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
			*** It's a good point. I'm curious what others think as well. Since this covers fan creations in general and will affect standards for multiple articles if you want to move the discussion to the community portal to try to get more feedback that might be helpful. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 12:50, 7 August 2007 (EDT))

imported>Ryangibsonstewart at 16:41, 7 August 2007

2007-08-07T16:41:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:41, 7 August 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Having the names of the people who started the Sarmy group seems very out of place on this page. Our other fan creations don't list who began a particular group or phenomenon (and if they do, they should be removed). The fan creations pages are not for references to oneself (which may be misconstrued as vanity), but for reporting on what the group is about or what it does, and for providing links to the group's page. I think this page is fine without mentioning all the people who ever had a hand in contributing to the group. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 12:26, 7 August 2007 (EDT)		Having the names of the people who started the Sarmy group seems very out of place on this page. Our other fan creations don't list who began a particular group or phenomenon (and if they do, they should be removed). The fan creations pages are not for references to oneself (which may be misconstrued as vanity), but for reporting on what the group is about or what it does, and for providing links to the group's page. I think this page is fine without mentioning all the people who ever had a hand in contributing to the group. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 12:26, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
	* Hmm. I think there's some information about the founding of [[The Marked]]. I'm personally not opposed to limited founder information as it's background on how the group was started, but an extended user list would be excessive. You do have a point that the relationship fan pages don't refer to any founders, but in those instances I'd consider them to be more generic entities focusing on the relationship rather than the group. In the case of [[Sarmy]] and [[The Marked]] the focus is on the specific group itself so it might make a little more sense to include some founder info. I think it's definitely worth discussing, I don't really have a strong feeling either way as long as in the end we're consistent. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 12:31, 7 August 2007 (EDT))		* Hmm. I think there's some information about the founding of [[The Marked]]. I'm personally not opposed to limited founder information as it's background on how the group was started, but an extended user list would be excessive. You do have a point that the relationship fan pages don't refer to any founders, but in those instances I'd consider them to be more generic entities focusing on the relationship rather than the group. In the case of [[Sarmy]] and [[The Marked]] the focus is on the specific group itself so it might make a little more sense to include some founder info. I think it's definitely worth discussing, I don't really have a strong feeling either way as long as in the end we're consistent. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 12:31, 7 August 2007 (EDT))
			** The only other fan creation page that has any kind of user information on it is [[fan powers]], and I believe it all should be removed for a number of reasons (see [[Heroes Wiki talk:Administrators#Fan Creation Changes\|discussion]]). I don't see a need for assigning credit to individuals for a group--it seems very misleading to me. There are lots of people, I'm sure, who contribute to Sarmy and helped bring about its inception (and if there's not a lot of people, it probably doesn't belong as a fan creation). To single out a few lead members, no matter the magnitude of their contributions, seems vain to me. I believe I have more contributions to Heroes Wiki than any other member, but I would never dream of putting my name on the front page, or on a Wikipedia article about Heroes Wiki (as I'm sure others probably feel the same way). But maybe I'm wrong about that, and maybe people want to have credit for their work--I just feel it's silly to point out a few key members, and ignore others who contribute. It'd be easier to just leave out all names altogether. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 12:41, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:52, 7 August 2007
Line 3:		Line 3:
	** The only other fan creation page that has any kind of user information on it is [[fan powers]], and I believe it all should be removed for a number of reasons (see [[Heroes Wiki talk:Administrators#Fan Creation Changes\|discussion]]). I don't see a need for assigning credit to individuals for a group--it seems very misleading to me. There are lots of people, I'm sure, who contribute to Sarmy and helped bring about its inception (and if there's not a lot of people, it probably doesn't belong as a fan creation). To single out a few lead members, no matter the magnitude of their contributions, seems vain to me. I believe I have more contributions to Heroes Wiki than any other member, but I would never dream of putting my name on the front page, or on a Wikipedia article about Heroes Wiki (as I'm sure others probably feel the same way). But maybe I'm wrong about that, and maybe people want to have credit for their work--I just feel it's silly to point out a few key members, and ignore others who contribute. It'd be easier to just leave out all names altogether. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 12:41, 7 August 2007 (EDT)		** The only other fan creation page that has any kind of user information on it is [[fan powers]], and I believe it all should be removed for a number of reasons (see [[Heroes Wiki talk:Administrators#Fan Creation Changes\|discussion]]). I don't see a need for assigning credit to individuals for a group--it seems very misleading to me. There are lots of people, I'm sure, who contribute to Sarmy and helped bring about its inception (and if there's not a lot of people, it probably doesn't belong as a fan creation). To single out a few lead members, no matter the magnitude of their contributions, seems vain to me. I believe I have more contributions to Heroes Wiki than any other member, but I would never dream of putting my name on the front page, or on a Wikipedia article about Heroes Wiki (as I'm sure others probably feel the same way). But maybe I'm wrong about that, and maybe people want to have credit for their work--I just feel it's silly to point out a few key members, and ignore others who contribute. It'd be easier to just leave out all names altogether. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 12:41, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
	*** It's a good point. I'm curious what others think as well. Since this covers fan creations in general and will affect standards for multiple articles if you want to move the discussion to the community portal to try to get more feedback that might be helpful. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 12:50, 7 August 2007 (EDT))		*** It's a good point. I'm curious what others think as well. Since this covers fan creations in general and will affect standards for multiple articles if you want to move the discussion to the community portal to try to get more feedback that might be helpful. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 12:50, 7 August 2007 (EDT))
			**** I thought it was already agreed that fan powers user information was to be removed. I'm not sure why that hasn't been done.--[[User:MiamiVolts\|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts\|talk]]) 12:52, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:50, 7 August 2007
Line 2:		Line 2:
	* Hmm. I think there's some information about the founding of [[The Marked]]. I'm personally not opposed to limited founder information as it's background on how the group was started, but an extended user list would be excessive. You do have a point that the relationship fan pages don't refer to any founders, but in those instances I'd consider them to be more generic entities focusing on the relationship rather than the group. In the case of [[Sarmy]] and [[The Marked]] the focus is on the specific group itself so it might make a little more sense to include some founder info. I think it's definitely worth discussing, I don't really have a strong feeling either way as long as in the end we're consistent. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 12:31, 7 August 2007 (EDT))		* Hmm. I think there's some information about the founding of [[The Marked]]. I'm personally not opposed to limited founder information as it's background on how the group was started, but an extended user list would be excessive. You do have a point that the relationship fan pages don't refer to any founders, but in those instances I'd consider them to be more generic entities focusing on the relationship rather than the group. In the case of [[Sarmy]] and [[The Marked]] the focus is on the specific group itself so it might make a little more sense to include some founder info. I think it's definitely worth discussing, I don't really have a strong feeling either way as long as in the end we're consistent. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 12:31, 7 August 2007 (EDT))
	** The only other fan creation page that has any kind of user information on it is [[fan powers]], and I believe it all should be removed for a number of reasons (see [[Heroes Wiki talk:Administrators#Fan Creation Changes\|discussion]]). I don't see a need for assigning credit to individuals for a group--it seems very misleading to me. There are lots of people, I'm sure, who contribute to Sarmy and helped bring about its inception (and if there's not a lot of people, it probably doesn't belong as a fan creation). To single out a few lead members, no matter the magnitude of their contributions, seems vain to me. I believe I have more contributions to Heroes Wiki than any other member, but I would never dream of putting my name on the front page, or on a Wikipedia article about Heroes Wiki (as I'm sure others probably feel the same way). But maybe I'm wrong about that, and maybe people want to have credit for their work--I just feel it's silly to point out a few key members, and ignore others who contribute. It'd be easier to just leave out all names altogether. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 12:41, 7 August 2007 (EDT)		** The only other fan creation page that has any kind of user information on it is [[fan powers]], and I believe it all should be removed for a number of reasons (see [[Heroes Wiki talk:Administrators#Fan Creation Changes\|discussion]]). I don't see a need for assigning credit to individuals for a group--it seems very misleading to me. There are lots of people, I'm sure, who contribute to Sarmy and helped bring about its inception (and if there's not a lot of people, it probably doesn't belong as a fan creation). To single out a few lead members, no matter the magnitude of their contributions, seems vain to me. I believe I have more contributions to Heroes Wiki than any other member, but I would never dream of putting my name on the front page, or on a Wikipedia article about Heroes Wiki (as I'm sure others probably feel the same way). But maybe I'm wrong about that, and maybe people want to have credit for their work--I just feel it's silly to point out a few key members, and ignore others who contribute. It'd be easier to just leave out all names altogether. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 12:41, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
			*** It's a good point. I'm curious what others think as well. Since this covers fan creations in general and will affect standards for multiple articles if you want to move the discussion to the community portal to try to get more feedback that might be helpful. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 12:50, 7 August 2007 (EDT))