Fan Creation talk:Paire

Category

• Think maybe we need a new category that covers phenomena like this? Maybe Fan Creations or something? I'm sure Theories would also fall into the category for instance. (Admin 13:44, 29 December 2006 (EST))
  • Not a bad idea. It needs to be a category outside category:Heroes, but doesn't really fit either category:Heroes Wiki or category: Production. That said, this article needs some work. At the very least, it should note Peter's and Claire's ages from the press kit, as well as Milo's comments on the likelihood of the pairing, and needs to be a lot more careful to avoid all the fandom jargon. *Sigh* I was personally kind of hoping we could avoid all of the 'shipping stuff and focus on the show, since this stuff is just a bunch of unfunny edit wars spoiling to happen, but I guess it's inevitable.--Hardvice (talk) 13:55, 29 December 2006 (EST)
    • I'll leave the category decision to you since you're one of the category masters. ;) New top-level category maybe? I could see some fan creations being in-world and some being real-world. The article is being promoted by someone from this site so I'm hopeful they're going to want to contribute and clean the article so it looks nice. I agree with your comment about the material, my initial reaction to the article wasn't positive either. :) However, like the Theories page, this is probably something the community is interested in so I think we should definitely try to cater to it essentially becoming a one-stop-shop for people interested in the encyclopedic content as well as fan-created phenomena. I'm sure we'll find the right balance and way to integrate the fan-created content without compromising the integrity of the encyclopedic content (like we did with the Theories page). (Admin 14:10, 29 December 2006 (EST))
    • The Tolkien Gateway wiki uses the term "fanon" for somethings like this. --Ted C 14:47, 29 December 2006 (EST)
      • Interesting. I hadn't heard of "fanon" before. I checked out the definition and the only issue I'd have with it personally is that it conveys a sense that information is more canonical than it really is. I personally think we need to make it clear the category is for fan creations and not imply that a fan creation is at all canonical. Reading the article on "fanon" there's even controversy when it comes to the meaning of the word itself!  :) (Admin 14:56, 29 December 2006 (EST))
        • As used at Tolkien Gateway, "fanon" is information that is widely believed to be authentic, but has no actual basis in "canon" source material. I don't know if that's exactly what you want for this category. Right now, I'd consider any kind of romantic relationship between Claire and Peter to be pure speculation, and move it to the Speculation page as such. --Ted C 15:27, 29 December 2006 (EST)

Clach

• This article pretty much demands a Clach article. Personally, I think worrying overmuch about the potential, as-yet unseeen love lives of fictional characters is a bit silly, but somebody ought to write it, for parity's sake if nothing else. (I might break down and write an "Uluggles" (Uluru/Mr. Muggles) article just for s&g though.)--Hardvice (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2006 (EST)

Fan Creation Flag

We're going to need to create a template warning of fan creations, as well - kind of like a spoilers flag, only not so severe. (PS - anybody want to write a "Brylar" article for Sylar's love affair with brains?) - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2006 (EST)

Nice work

• This page is coming along nicely. Kudos to everyone who's helped contribute to the article. You've all done an excellent job presenting this fan-creation in a way that fits nicely with the overall goal of this wiki. (Admin 19:31, 29 December 2006 (EST))

Uncited Additions?

• I'm new to this, so I could be wrong, but isn't the edit by Ryangibsonstewart adding "(ONLY if the said legal adult in the situation is less than 18 years, 11 months, 3 weeks, and 6 days-or younger)," to the "age difference" section uncited? I've researched this issue throughly, and I have no idea where this came from. If they can provide a source as to where they got this information, it would be much appriciated, because I saw nothing to that effect on the state of Texas website. Also, clarification may be needed as to which state they are referring to. Potostfbeyeluvr 21:15, 7 January 2007 (EST)
  • I actually didn't make that addition, Gargyloveswolfy did. [1] Remove it if you want. I don't really care what it says in the notes section of a page about two people that don't exist. Let 'em have superbabies if they want. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2007 (EST)
    • Sorry for the error. Potostfbeyeluvr 21:55, 7 January 2007 (EST)
  • Texas is one of a few states with what's called a 'Romeo and Juliet' law: the age of consent is 17, but only when the older partner is 19 or younger. It's designed to prevent couples who started dating when both where minors to be shielded from statutory rape prosecutions when one reaches majority before the other. See Texas Penal Code § 22.011. New York law also has an affirmative defense for defendants less than four years older than the offender. If Claire is 17, then neither of these exceptions are needed, but if Claire is 16, then neither of these exceptions would apply unless Peter is 20 (19 in Texas) or younger.--Hardvice (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2007 (EST)

--Hardvice (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2007 (EST)

• • • This seems to indicate that a 16 year old can have sex with someone who is not more than three years older, and that a 17 year old can have sex with whomever they choose. Can you point me to a specific law that says otherwise? Potostfbeyeluvr 21:28, 7 January 2007 (EST)
      • No, and there's no need to be snotty about it. I was just answering the question about what the Romeo-and-Juliet law said, not commenting on whether it applies. I think worrying about the hypothetical love lives of fictional characters is silly, and couldn't care less if Claire has an affair with Peter, Zach, or Mr. Muggles.--Hardvice (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2007 (EST)
        • I'm not trying to be snotty in the least. I understand that it's hard to tell when people are being sarcastic online, and that my post my have come off in a sarcastic way. It wasn't mean that way. If someone has the real story on this, I'm interested. I posted the only law on the issue that I could find, and how I saw what it said. If that was not correct, I wanted to know. Also, I believe your post has been edited to answer my question since I posted. When I wrote my last post, I did not see the "If Claire is 17, then neither of these exceptions are needed" part. Maybe it was there, and I just missed it. I don't know. I'm sorry if I came off in a way I didn't mean to. I'm just trying to fin the answer here. Potostfbeyeluvr 21:40, 7 January 2007 (EST)
          • I'm sorry if I came across as harsh. It just seems like every fandom I've ever been interested in has been ruined by a handful of psychotic, agenda-filled 'shippers, and I really hate the thought that this Wiki is going to end up the same. Simultaneous edits here have the habit of making conversations here a bit perilous, and again I apologize. You are correct: the article needs to be edited, but we should bear in mind that neither Claire's nor Peter's ages are confirmed in-episode yet, except that Claire is presumably at least 16 since she has a driver's license.--Hardvice (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2007 (EST)
            • No worries. I just don't want to come off as one of those rabid shippers. I do ship Paire, but that's not what this was about. I'm for accuracy in everything, whether it supports my ship or not. As to the article, would it be accpetable to edit it to say that if Claire is younger than 16, the relationship is illegal (Peter obviously isn't young enough in either state), but if she is older, it is legal? The details of "three years/four years" doesn't really matter, since Peter is too old for either. Simply saying that it is legal if she's 17, and illegal if she's not seems like the best option to me. Potostfbeyeluvr 21:54, 7 January 2007 (EST)
              • That sounds about right. In any case, good catch and welcome aboard!