committee post: Category proposal

[aethel]

The Fanlore wiki committee would like to thank everyone who's participated in our recent conversation about categories and anime / manga / related fandoms. Several commentors on that thread sparked the following idea (especially branchandroot -- thanks, branchandroot!), and we'd like to know what you think about it.

The idea is this: what if we remove all of the format categories, and replace them with a flat, non-hierarchical list of fandom categories? Here's a visual representation of how things work now:


[ Image Description: The "Fandoms by Source Text" category, encompassing both medium-based categories like "Film", "Real People", and "Gaming", and individual fandom categories like "Harry Potter" and "World of Warcraft". The "Fandoms By Source Community" category is unused. ]

Basically, we're rethinking how the category hierarchy for Fandoms by Source Text works. "Fandoms by Source Text" includes all fandoms that are focused on a single "text" or set of texts, like Final Fantasy, Jane Austen, or Brokeback Mountain. Currently, there are a number of "format" categories underneath the main "Fandoms by Source Text" category that we inherited from multifandom archive structure--these categories are not much used at all because a) the wiki isn't a fanfic archive and b) we now have categories for individual fandoms. Meanwhile, "Fandoms by Source Text" has a sibling category that is underused: Fandoms by Source Community, for fandoms that don't correspond neatly to a single canon text. Like Media Fandom, Anime & Manga Fandom, Filk, Vidding, J-pop, Manhwa, etc.

The restructuring plan has two parts:

1. Delete all of the format categories from Fandoms by Source Text, leaving a flat, non-hierarchical list of fandom categories.

2. Make better use of Fandoms by Source Community by moving the Anime, Manga, Real People, and Comics(?) categories there.

And then fans can make as many more fandom categories as they need, according to the naming conventions within their own communities. (We also recognize that some fannish traditions have arisen which don’t consider themselves part of an overall fannish culture; it’s not our intention to prescribe categories for those traditions, but rather to let those fan communities self-define as they will.)

Here's a visual aid for the proposed changes:


[ Image Description: "Fandoms by Source Text" category now encompasses only fandom categories like "Coffee Prince" and "Blake’s 7". The "Fandoms by Source Community" category now has categories for things like "Media Fandom", "K-Drama", and "Gaming". These in turn also lead to individual fandom categories, e.g. "Media Fandom" leads to "Blake’s 7" and "Harry Potter" while "K-Drama" leads to "Coffee Prince". ]

(This is a rough sketch to illustrate how potential fandom categories might be linked to one another and is not intended to be complete or prescriptive.)

Categories to be deleted:
Books & Literature
Cartoons
Film
Games (?)
Radio
Television
Theater
(and "Real People" could be renamed or split into whatever categories people choose.)

---

Here are some examples for how wiki pages might be categorized according to the plan.

No fandom that has a fandom category needs to have a page categorized under Fandoms by Source Text. For example:

Category:Fandoms by Source Text
.....Category:Harry Potter
...........Harry Potter (the page)

So the page "Harry Potter" would get the Harry Potter category and no other category.

And:

Category:Fandoms by Source Text
.....Homestuck (the page)

The page "Homestuck" would get the Fandoms by Source Text category because there is no "Homestuck" category yet.

And:

Category:Fandoms by Source Text
.....Category:Naruto
.........Naruto (the page)

Category:Fandoms by Source Community
....Category:Anime & Manga
........Category:Naruto
.............Naruto (the page)

The page "Naruto" would get the Naruto category.

And:

Category:Fandoms by Source Text
.....Category:Blake's 7
.........Blake's 7 (the page)

Category:Fandoms by Source Community
.....Category:Media Fandom
.........Category:Blake's 7
.............Blake's 7 (the page)


The page "Blake's 7" would get the Blake's 7 category, but would no longer have a "Television" category. Each fandom category would be its own thing.

---

Would this proposed solution -- getting rid of format categories such as "Television" and "Film" and letting each fandom category (including "Anime & Manga," "Manhwa," etc) be its own thing -- work for you? We want your input; please tell us what you think!

(If there are no objections to the plan above, please feel free to start moving categories on May 28. If you need help with wiki stuff, please don’t hesitate to contact the gardeners for assistance or leave a comment to this post.)

EDIT June 23: See the revised proposal here

Comments

[naraht]

"Fandoms by Source Text" includes all fandoms that are focused on a single "text" or set of texts...

I get that this is a description of the way that things are now, but it seems odd that you're proposing keeping the same term when you're proposing to put non text-based fandoms like RPF under that heading.

Or are you? I can't quite parse this here:

No fandom that has a fandom category needs to have a page categorized under Fandoms by Source Text.

As I consider myself fairly fandom-savvy and Wiki-savvy, I think that my confusion doesn't bode well for your plan....

ETA: Are books part of Media Fandom or not? Again, confusion...

[aethel]

We are using the word "text" in the academic sense--anything that can be "read" or interpreted. So movies, books, paintings, anything televised or recorded are "texts" in this sense. There has always been some back and forth about whether RPF fit even this loose definition.

>No fandom that has a fandom category needs to have a page categorized under Fandoms by Source Text.

There is a Category:Harry Potter. The page "Harry Potter", along with pages like The Draco Trilogy and FictionAlley, gets this category and doesn't need the category "Fandoms by Source Text".

Media Fandom is an eclectic assortment of individual fan communities that share certain values, practices, and vocabulary. It is my understanding that some books, like Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings, are counted as part of media fandom. I guess it depends on who you ask?

[naraht]

We are using the word "text" in the academic sense--anything that can be "read" or interpreted. So movies, books, paintings, anything televised or recorded are "texts" in this sense. There has always been some back and forth about whether RPF fit even this loose definition.

Yes, I understood "text" in the academic sense. My concern was really whether RPF fits that definition. I suppose some does and some doesn't, but that might not be too helpful.

There is a Category:Harry Potter. The page "Harry Potter", along with pages like The Draco Trilogy and FictionAlley, gets this category and doesn't need the category "Fandoms by Source Text".

Ah, OK. But you would still find Harry Potter if you were looking in the "Fandoms by Source Text" category, right, because there would be the "Harry Potter" category in there?

Media Fandom is an eclectic assortment of individual fan communities that share certain values, practices, and vocabulary. It is my understanding that some books, like Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings, are counted as part of media fandom. I guess it depends on who you ask?

So would Fanlore differentiate this, then, and put some book fandoms into the Media Fandom category and others not? Where would the other book fandoms fit in "Fandom by Source Community" terms?

[rbarenblat]

My concern was really whether RPF fits that definition. I suppose some does and some doesn't, but that might not be too helpful.

The wiki committee has just been talking about this, actually -- and we share your sense that some RPF fits this definition and some doesn't. For that matter, some fans whose activity centers around "real people" call what they're doing "RPF;" other fans don't.

The nice thing about this system is that fans can choose the categories they want to put on their pages, so fans from communities which identify with the RPF category can use that category, and fans who identify in some other way can create a category to encompass their way of self-identifying.

ut you would still find Harry Potter if you were looking in the "Fandoms by Source Text" category, right, because there would be the "Harry Potter" category in there?

Yes, definitely. The "Harry Potter" page would be listed in the "Fandoms by Source Text" category, and also in the "Media Fandom" category. Pages can have more than one category, so that's no problem.

So would Fanlore differentiate this, then, and put some book fandoms into the Media Fandom category and others not?

That would be up to Fanlore users, I think.

[sqbr]

This is probably an obvious question, but: under this new categorisation, would it still be possible to create a list of all the fandoms based on books? I understand not making that the primary classification, but it's still a useful thing to know.

(On the whole I find these categorisation questions confuse me, so I don't have much to add, sorry)

[naraht]

...fans can choose the categories they want to put on their pages...

If this is the line that the committee is taking, then doesn't it in a sense make the whole issue about how to categorize anime/manga fandoms rather simple? Some fandoms could use the old "Format" categories and some could use "Fandom by Source Community" categories and some could use both, depending on what suits the users/fans best.

I suppose I'm confused about where the line is drawn between top-down and bottom-up decisions about how the wiki is supposed to operate.

[naraht]

Yeah, I would still want to be able to do that.

[aethel]

>"Harry Potter" page would be listed in the "Fandoms by Source Text" category,

...the "Harry Potter" CATEGORY, not the page :)

[rbarenblat]

(Yes, I realized that typo as soon as I had posted the comment, but I can't seem to edit comments, so I couldn't fix it! Argh! Sorry!)

[aethel]

>But you would still find Harry Potter if you were looking in the "Fandoms by Source Text" category, right, because there would be the "Harry Potter" category in there?

Correct!

>Where would the other book fandoms fit in "Fandom by Source Community" terms?

I know there's a Science Fiction fandom category, but there might not be an umbrella term for all these fandoms, I don't know. Not every Fandom by Source Text category needs a "Fandom by Source Community" category.

[naraht]

Some fandoms might just not have identifiable source communities, I suppose this is fair enough. "Feral fandoms," perhaps?

[msilverstar]

I've found that this kind of hierarchical taxonomy is never perfect, and often the cause of much wank -- you should see biology taxo fights, especially with new DNA evidence.

The more you worry about evenness and consistency, the more problems. If RPF doesn't fit, make it another top-level category rather than stuffing it into something else. Balanced trees are the hobgoblin of little minds.

[aethel]

Is there a larger "Book Fandom" identity that fans of book fandoms share? If so, we could move or rename the current category as a Fandom by Source Community. I see a page for Litfic--is that considered a fandom?

[naraht]

For my part at least that wouldn't really fit the requirement. Type of text ("book") and identity of fandom are two different things. It would be very useful to still be able to search by type of text.

Litfic might be considered a fandom by some but I don't think it's overarching enough as an identity to play the role that you're hoping to fit it into here.

[sqbr]

Seconded.

[facetofcathy]

I'm just throwing this out there:

Fandoms by Source Text as you have it proposed which is a page which indexes the various individual Fandom Categories.

Fandoms by Source Community as you have it proposed which is a page which indexes the various broad types of Fandoms that those source texts might be similar to, so that each sub Category is an index of similar types of Fandom Categories.

Then add:

Fandoms by Canon Type which would be a page that indexes the various types or varieties of canon sources (Live Action Television, Film, Sequential Art, Animation, Books, etc.) and each subpage is an index of similar types of Fandom Categories organized in that way.


Result: A fan who likes sequential art can look at that page and see all similar things. A fan who likes Asian-sourced fandoms can look at that page and see similar things. A fan who wants to see the list of Fandoms can go to Fandoms by Source Text and see that.

[(Anonymous)]

You really want to call some minority fandoms feral?

[naraht]

I'm not particularly fond of the term, no, but it seems to be the term for what I'm talking about.

http://fanlore.org/wiki/Feral

If you have a suggestion for a better word, go for it.

[busaikko]

Interesting. I'm wondering how this will work with fandoms that fit in more than one source community. Taking Harry Potter as an example, there are HP doujinshi (Source Community: Anime & Manga), HP filksongs (Source Community: Filk), HP vids (Source Community:??? where do vids go?), Lego HP Wii game as well as tabletop games (Source Community: Gaming), and HP film actor RPF (Source Community: RPF). Would all of these be locatable (left to right on above chart) from the Harry Potter Page?

As well, how would same-Source Community and multiple-Source Community variant canons be categorized (on the chart, moving right to left)? For an example of the first, a film remake, like old/new Karate Kid; for an example of the second, a manga series / TV anime series / animated film series (with reboots) / live-action film / etc. like Uchu Senkan Yamato, all with canons that differ to some degree. Would these all point to a main Fandom:differentiation page?

I find Source Community;Media Fandom confusing, but assume that this is already something that has been hashed out. I was surprised that it seems to contain all English-language film, television, books, music, theater, animation, and radio, but assume those would be subcategories?

pardon my intrusion, but...

[annotated_em]

Something other than "feral"--anything other than feral. "Miscellaneous" comes to mind, or "unsorted."

But "feral" seems like a bad idea to me, not least because it's already freighted with nasty connotations just from general use. On top of that, it seems to be a term that originates out of academic study of fandom, and I think that imposing something that even sort of looks academic onto minority fandoms (also a problematic term!) is just a bad political decision all around. Miscellaneous/unsorted aren't much better, to be sure, but "feral" is just a bad idea.

I mean, sheesh, I am technically a feral fan, by the Fanlore definition you cite, and that puts my hackles up in a major way--even though I'm an academic, too, and can see the logic of the description and definition.

Re: pardon my intrusion, but...

[(Anonymous)]

Miscellaneous fandoms sounds much better, thank you. :)

Re: pardon my intrusion, but...

[naraht]

"Miscellaneous" sounds fine by me. I really wasn't advocating for the term, it was just the one that came to mind.

Re: pardon my intrusion, but...

[(Anonymous)]

I think that imposing something that even sort of looks academic onto minority fandoms (also a problematic term!) is just a bad political decision all around.

Just throwing this out there, but imo the term 'sequential art' falls into this category, too.

[elf]

"Source text" could potential rename to "source material." Those who aren't directly involved in academia might keep being confused when we see a tv show called a "text." (It's proper academic use; if the archive isn't intended to scare off non-academics, it should be comfortable for casual users as well.)

[elf]

I like this suggestion. I suppose megafandoms could just have multiple canon types? (Batman: Comics, TV, Movies--there have been novels, but I don't think they have a presence apart from the comics fandom.) Not sure if "TV" should be one category or two, live action & animated.