Umbrella pages

[meg_r]

The discussion about Tropes has raised the problem of how to deal with the multiple pages about consent issues/sexual assault: we've got Rapefic, Noncon and Dub-con, all with somewhat different content. Noncon in particular is defined entirely in relation to rapefic and dubcon, and all the history of the trope is on the rapefic page. I feel that none of the pages can be comprehensive when the content is spread out this way.

My preference would be to merge the pages into one [[Sexual Assault (Trope)]] or [[Consent Issues in Fanworks]] page or the like and redirect, but I suspect that will prove an Unpopular Fannish Opinion. Alternatively, how about an umbrella page with the main content, so that the terms can be usefully compared, leaving the three pages as brief glossary terms that link to the umbrella page?

Other suggestions?

Comments

[ratcreature]

I like "Consent Issues" (I'm not sure in fanworks is needed), though perhaps that could be confused with the issues of permissions in fandom. Like the topics of which authors tolerate fanworks which don't, and the issues of playing in another fan's universe without permission, permission to remix and unauthorized sequels etc.

[meg_r]

Actually I think "Issues of consent" is how a lot of people tag fic these days, which is maybe less confusing? and it doesn't seem to have the baggage that the other terms do.

[ratcreature]

With Issues of Consent in that order I always associate that massive classic rec page by Sandy Herrold that had that name. For years it was my one stop to find rapefic...

[meg_r]

Right, point. And that page will probably want to be documented at some point.

[facetofcathy]

And should be discussed somewhere on one of these pages. Wow this would make way more sense as a reply to the conversation about the Issues of Consent rec list.

I kind of agree that there will be resistance to combining the terms on one page only, but a discussion of the way they interrelate that links to all definitions needs a home, and hopefully only has to be written once.

[cesperanza]

I have to say, I'd be against any consolidations period--I'm totally for additions! Why not an *additional* page that's "Issues of Consent" that links to everything extant. (I also feel the same about the -fic centered pages, i.e. that if people feel the need to make a Curtainvidding page or whatever, they should, or an additional page called Domesticity (Trope), they should, but why change what's there? Why not just add more, contextualize around, etc?

[facetofcathy]

Well we're trying on the other post to limit the changes--only doing it when the whateverfic name was chosen, not because anyone says that, but because the person making the page was not thinking beyond fic or when the trope is so intermingled that untangling it's uses is not going to happen.

If there's a perception that I am proposing wholesale page changes it is false. The current proposed list of changes is at about ten or so, and is only a proposal.

[cesperanza]

Right--I totally get that. My dog in this race is totally just to promote additiveness in general!--I do feel like people *forget* that it's a wiki and that there's no limitation on the number of pages we can have! I think that a lot of people are hung up on waiting for official word on things when the answer--as it so often is in fandom--is "go on in! add the thing you want and link it where you think it ought to be linked!" I put my edits where my mouth is on this, too. :)

[ratcreature]

Also, clearly this organization thing is contentious, and has been from the beginning. To be honest, I'm still vaguely disgruntled how the h/c organization controversy was handled, even though plenty others objected that whump, torture and hurt/hurt was all bundled into h/c on the talk page, the official word was otherwise.

[cesperanza]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm anti-authoritarian period, and my own answer to everything is BOTH. So sure! put whump, torture, and hurt/hurt on the h/c page--aaaaand wikilink them all to their own pages too. Why NOT both?

[ratcreature]

The problem to have the same things in two places is that it makes maintenance of the information harder. So I can see why you would want to have information about one thing in one place for that thing, and only links rather than full text in other places.

And as to why I didn't make a torture page anyway, well, because someone who I understood was an admin said it shouldn't be done for h/c and its their wiki and they have arbiting power when there is no consensus?

[cesperanza]

Yeah, having just looked at that h/c page?--what is the downside to having the info on both pages? What god would strike us down if, in addition to that h/c page staying just the same, the word whump was *ALSO* wikilinked, the basic definition taken, and people started expanding over there too! I'm personally pro-redundancy--I don't care if the same info is repeated multiple places, especially at the start, because my thought is that each page, though similar to start, will grow as fandom grows. My 2c, YMMV!

[ratcreature]

Why not just add more, contextualize around, etc?

Because it is nicer to read overview pages for a topic than to have to click through five pages that are very very closely related but all only have two paragraphs one of which repeats part of the other pages?

[cesperanza]

I personally disagree; in that case, sure, feel free to make an overview page *in addition*, but then link to all those individual five pages when you list them on the main page. Those five pages may yet take on a life of their own; at a minimum, different phrases are used in different communities;/identities. So I'd still say its an "add and contextualize" solution.

[meg_r]

I disagree with this *so hard*. I *hate* redundancy, it makes me all hulksmash, so forgive my vehemence. But I don't think it is even possible to contextualise the different phrases when the context itself is spread over five different pages. No-one is ever going to bother to update them all. Or even *look* at them all. I think that kind of fragmentation is really offputting and discouraging; if there's five different places you theoretically could add something, how are you supposed to know where to put it? Or if you want to reference something that's mostly on one page, but the rest of the information is on a second page - well, I just do not believe most people go: yay, I will pointlessly duplicate the information!, I think they go: maybe I just won't bother.

[cesperanza]

Yeah, I totally see what you mean, but I have the opposite fear: the more "finished"-seeming a page, the less likely I am to add to it. I feel like I'm always trying to pry things open to make space--I mean, a lot of things we're going to want to write about haven't even happened yet! Whump could take on a whole new vibrancy two fandoms from now, frinstance.

I also thought that contextualizing COULD happen on a single page: my idea was to add (I'm always about adding!) additional, "top level" pages like the Trope pages that were suggested pulling related themes/ideas together. That way you have chocolate AND peanut butter.

Vis a vis "if there's five different places you theoretically could add something, how are you supposed to know where to put it?" I myself usually pick one and then add a link to the others. I mean, the idea of a web means that you need a load of different data points, no?

Anyway, I'll personally work with whatever system happens--though in a way, I'm sort of anti-system and anti-barriers to entry. I'm trying to figure out how to increase participation, and the problem of course is that you've got different personality types: some won't play if the rules aren't clear, some won't play if the rules are too complicated, some won't bother to learn rules, some won't...

[meg_r]

You are so right about different personality types! case in point: I do sometimes find very finished looking pages a bit offputting, but I tend to find pages that need a lot of work or are really disorganised even more discouraging. I was looking at the X-Men page today - my first fandom! And I have so much to say about the X-Men! and the page is so big and awful and I clicked away without adding a single sentence. But maybe I am just too easily discouraged. Anyway, I will add the trope page I think, and move the interrelated content over but try and leave a bit of 'openness' for people to add any more specific content to the glossary pages. I think.

imo the main thing that would increase participation would be if we had *more people* - more viewpoints, more content, more teamwork. It's hard to convince people it's fun when no-one else is doing it. I suppose what you really want is people you can blackmail.

X-Men

[anenko]

I was looking at the X-Men page today - my first fandom! And I have so much to say about the X-Men!

That was pretty much my reaction. I did add a little bit of info; most of the "fannish activity" and all of "themes and trends" is mine. I feel horrible suggesting this since at few people obviously put a lot of work into the page, but more than half of it should go. I'd say most of the sections after 1.13 could be cut, due to the focus on *canon* rather than *fandom.*

[aethel]

I like "Consent Issues in Fanworks" or "Issues of Consent in Fanworks" as a fourth page to discuss, compare, and contrast the other terms. I don't think we should lose the individual glossary pages, but it makes sense to keep the majority of the discussion about the relationships between the terms in one place.

Incidentally, "Unpopular Fannish Opinion" does not yet have an entry in Fanlore. :)

[meg_r]

Incidentally, "Unpopular Fannish Opinion" does not yet have an entry in Fanlore. :)

Does too ;P.

[sophinisba]

I agree. I'd like "Consent Issues" best as a page for discussing them together and keeping the others as glossary pages.

[msilverstar]

That works for me. They definitely need to be glossable.

[cesperanza]

I like that word, glossable. That's a useful expression for me in this discussion--thank you!!