I think my problems with your proposal is that the artist discusses this with the wiki committee but not the editors who are working on the article.
I think the committee is the right place if an article goes against policy and needs to be corrected without question, maybe because it got something wrong, like an attribution of art or worse factual errors (and the fan can't or doesn't want to figure out the wiki editing themselves), or there are issues of unwanted exposure (whether whole names or problems like that the wiki connects explicit material with a name in an unwanted way that an artist otherwise doesn't etc).
But I think for other concerns, less critical things, the regular editing process and talk page and such is the way to go, whether initiated from the fan directly or even reposted from whomever they mailed and then discussed on the talk page. That may seem a bit overblown in this particular case, because it does not concern many covers (as most removed were the explicit ones which is the different issues), and not any article text, but for me it's more the appearance that is given by these edits upon requests. Like I said above, I'm not against fans having input on their own pages, the goal is after all to gather a fandom history, not to be needlessly confrontational, but it should be a process with the wiki editors who sometimes also invest a lot in articles.
WRT picking and choosing I agree with your point. I mean, in general I would love artist pages that discuss more of the artist's development, and illustrate the text with specific and relevant to the text art examples, and then a gallery maybe in addition to that rather than the main thing on the page, but I actually do not understand the point of the policy that fanlore shouldn't be an index that I linked and disagree with that policy. Sure we don't want to *archive* all this stuff on fanlore itself , but I find bibliography type lists useful to have, and would actually think them a useful thing in a fandom history.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
no subject
I think the committee is the right place if an article goes against policy and needs to be corrected without question, maybe because it got something wrong, like an attribution of art or worse factual errors (and the fan can't or doesn't want to figure out the wiki editing themselves), or there are issues of unwanted exposure (whether whole names or problems like that the wiki connects explicit material with a name in an unwanted way that an artist otherwise doesn't etc).
But I think for other concerns, less critical things, the regular editing process and talk page and such is the way to go, whether initiated from the fan directly or even reposted from whomever they mailed and then discussed on the talk page. That may seem a bit overblown in this particular case, because it does not concern many covers (as most removed were the explicit ones which is the different issues), and not any article text, but for me it's more the appearance that is given by these edits upon requests. Like I said above, I'm not against fans having input on their own pages, the goal is after all to gather a fandom history, not to be needlessly confrontational, but it should be a process with the wiki editors who sometimes also invest a lot in articles.
WRT picking and choosing I agree with your point. I mean, in general I would love artist pages that discuss more of the artist's development, and illustrate the text with specific and relevant to the text art examples, and then a gallery maybe in addition to that rather than the main thing on the page, but I actually do not understand the point of the policy that fanlore shouldn't be an index that I linked and disagree with that policy. Sure we don't want to *archive* all this stuff on fanlore itself , but I find bibliography type lists useful to have, and would actually think them a useful thing in a fandom history.