paraka: A baby wearing headphones and holding a mic (Default)
paraka ([personal profile] paraka) wrote in [community profile] fanlore2012-09-21 03:24 pm

Podfic Entries

I've been trying to add more entries to Fanlore about podfic and have run into a bit of an issue. When I was creating new pages I was titling them "Title (podfic)" to help distinguish that this was an entry about the podfic not about the fic, which normally has the same title.

The problem though, is that this goes against current Fanlore policies to only add an honourific to an entry if there's a conflicting entry of the same name and there's a need to disambiguate. So the gardeners, rightly, were changing the names of the pages I created to remove the honourific.

And while I totally understand the reason for the policy, it still made me nervous because without the (podfic) in the title it just wasn't as clear that the entry was a podfic entry. Sure enough, one of the entries I made was later edited in a way to make it seem more like a fic entry (it's since been changed back and with other additions).

So I'd like to have a conversation about what we can do to make sure that podfic entries are welcomed on Fanlore and that future editors, trying to be helpful but not aware that the entry is a podfic entry, won't end up morphing the entries into fic entries. I've spoken to some individual podficcers about this as well as some of the Fanlore gardeners, and here's some of the suggestions we've come up with so far:

[personal profile] klb suggested that one way to deal with it is to include "podfic" in the title, but not as an honourific. So "Title podfic" would be how the pages are named. Most of the time, in fannish day-to-day conversations, people will often specify when they're talking about a podfic if the context of the situation doesn't already imply it. And when you look at places like AO3 or general fandom comms, many podficcers add that sort of distinction when they post their work. So adding "podfic" to the title does reflect podfic fandom today.

Sparcicle suggested that we add a note to the top of podfic pages saying "This page is about the podfic. For the story, see Title (story)."
This will give an immediate visual clue to those viewing the page that this is a page for the podfic and gives them a link to the fic page (or the opportunity to create a page for the fic if it doesn't already exist, as it won't in most cases).

There was some debate in the talk page where this was brought up that (story) is perhaps not the correct honourific and, while I'm throwing my 2 cents in, I'd like to say that I'd prefer to see the fic getting an honourific like (fanfic) instead, since the podfic is a story too (as are vids and comics and many other fanarts). In fact, what the fic and podfic share is the story, what we need to disambiguate is which medium the story is being told in.

[personal profile] aethel suggested adding a grey banner to the infobox to make it clearer that the template is a podfic template.

Personally, I think I like options 2 and 3 together best, but I thought I'd ask others how they feel before I start creating a bunch more pages. And please feel free to add more suggestions!
ratcreature: RatCreature is confused: huh? (huh?)

[personal profile] ratcreature 2012-09-23 01:32 am (UTC)(link)
But afaik no editor has control over any future edits to pages they created or edited, including future splits and merges, unless it is their own user page. There were even conflicts of people who did not like what articles said about themselves, rather than just some fanwork, and they could not "define themselves" except that their POV was also on the page among others. Everything outside of user pages is subject to PPOV policy and negotiation on talk pages, or ultimately arbiting from the wiki committee.

[personal profile] mrs_potatohead 2012-09-23 01:39 am (UTC)(link)
A lot of interesting points and thoughts.

I'd like to suggest that folks keep in mind the word "vandalize" means to purposely ruin something and to do it with harmful or malicious intent.

In the over three years I've been editing at Fanlore, the instances of actual vandalism (aside from mindless spam) can be counted on one hand.

When folks make changes and additions to pages, it has been done with good faith. People make errors, miscalculate, goof up, misread, and can be clumsy (I've been guilty of all of these things), but they don't vandalize.



morgandawn: (Default)

Disagreements also not vandalism

[personal profile] morgandawn 2012-09-23 02:41 am (UTC)(link)
and to add to this: the act of disagreeing and changing the page is also not automatically vandalism. If I feel that a page should be restructured to stress a point (or to bury a point) or don't like how the page looks, if I believe the wrong template or category is being used, or even (yes this does happen) if I think that the page should not exist on Fanlore, all of these can be edits done with good faith and be part of the normal give and take of wiki edits. What typically happens is someone goes to the Talk page and says: "Why you do that? That wrong! This right!" And then I explain my POV, they explain theirs, we tussle (hopefully civily), we sometimes ask others for input, we wrestle some more and eventually we reach a consensus and/or agree to disagree (or if we don't, we ask the Wiki Committee for help). But in the past 4 years on Fanlore we've only had to ask the Wiki Committee a few times for help. And unless the disagreements touch on one of the Fanlore policies, there is a lot of room for different POVs and different approaches to edits.
morgandawn: (Default)

[personal profile] morgandawn 2012-09-23 03:35 am (UTC)(link)
and I think raising this issue...that the current podfic/fanfic model can lead to inadvertent changes to podfic pages is what we as editors should be discussing. And we are - it is as if there is this stop sign hidden by shrubbery and some people cannot see the sign. Some editors are suggesting the shrubbery be pruned, some are suggesting we paint the sign neon and some are asking why there is even a stop sign there at all.

I think in the end we'll agree to a bit of pruning and a bit of painting. I don't think we'll all agree that the stop sign needs to come down.
morgandawn: (Default)

[personal profile] morgandawn 2012-09-23 05:30 am (UTC)(link)
Klb is this what you are talking about in terms of creating a pre-filled fic section on the podfic page (note: example for discussion purposes only, not necessarily saying this is how it should be:
http://fanlore.org/wiki/User:MeeDee/SamplePreFilledPodficPage
klb: (Default)

[personal profile] klb 2012-09-23 05:37 am (UTC)(link)
It's definitely an interesting sample for discussion. I'm very curious what everyone who has been involved in this discussion will think!

But yes, that's essentially what I was picturing.

(Also, I am super amused and charmed by the fake content of that fake podfic page. MUCH BETTER THAN CATS. :D)

ETA: I think the one difference from what I was imagining is that I'm not sure I'd have included a Fanfic: Reactions/Reviews section. In most cases where a page was created around a podfic, at least initially, the section for the fic itself would probably be very short, and wouldn't include reactions/reviews. If someone came along to add info to the fic section, then they might *add* fic reactions/reviews, but I don't think it would make sense to ask the podfic page creator to do this by default every time the template was used. (Though, of course, it could stay and people could just delete that part if desired...)
Edited 2012-09-23 05:41 (UTC)
morgandawn: (Default)

[personal profile] morgandawn 2012-09-23 05:50 am (UTC)(link)
I too am torn about whether to include the Fanfic Reviews section. Do we want to (gently) push editors to create a new page just for a few lines about a fanfic? Or do we leave this section here and see what kind of info is collected and then decide if the fanfic needs its own stand alone page (we've had to do that with reviews for zine stories where the reviews for a single story grew so voluminous they overshadowed the zine, so we created a page just for the one story).

The other idea would be to add below the line about the fanfic: "To add commentary about the fanfic, please create a seperate page." But that's a bit...pushy?

I think I still favor the subtler suggestion of: "This page is about the podfic. For the story, see This Never Happened (story)" at the top like here: http://fanlore.org/wiki/This_Never_Happened

or perhaps we let the people making the podfic entries choose which one works better for them.

klb: (Default)

[personal profile] klb 2012-09-23 05:56 am (UTC)(link)
Do you think it would push editors to a new page, rather than to just expand on their own the fic section already provided on that page?
morgandawn: (Default)

[personal profile] morgandawn 2012-09-23 06:00 am (UTC)(link)
To keep track, I am going to call the sample I just created the Prefilled Podfic Example (or Model 2). The one created with the disambiguation line at the top (like here: http://fanlore.org/wiki/This_Never_Happened) would be the Guidepost Podfic Example (or Model 1.) I think we all agree that doing a grey highlight on all templates would be a good idea overall. Have I left out any other examples discussed to date? I have to admit I am losing track and am having problems following what we're debating without concrete examples in front of us.
morgandawn: (Default)

[personal profile] morgandawn 2012-09-23 06:05 am (UTC)(link)
We talking about Model 2? Yes, I think adding a pre-filled "reviews/reactions" section would encourage people to add fic commentary to the podfic page. Leaving it off (and only offering the one line with the red link to the yet to be created fanfic page) might push them to create said fanfic page - or they might just start typing below the FanFic line anyway no matter what subsections we do - or do not include there.

Personally, I think it would help if we had several examples we could test to see how they eventually play out. And I'd leave it up to the person creating the podfic page to decide which to use. That may be an obvious statement, but I felt it needs to be said,
Edited (typos, sigh) 2012-09-23 06:11 (UTC)
klb: (Default)

[personal profile] klb 2012-09-23 06:15 am (UTC)(link)
I like the idea of having several templates and having the person who creates the page choose. Model 1, Model 2, or modified Model 2 (2a, 2b, etc), which would probably vary mostly in terms of how much information the fic section invited.

Of course, I'm not a super relevant participant in all of this, not being a Gardener or having ever made a podfic page on fanlore—just an interested party in the discussion! So I'm not sure how much it means for me to like the idea. But I do. :)
anatsuno: a white woman presses earphones to ber breasts (podfic!)

[personal profile] anatsuno 2012-09-23 10:31 am (UTC)(link)
You're right, and if I was posting this comment now I would not use that word, for which I apologize. I will stand by my use of concern-trolling, though. :)
extempore: (Default)

[personal profile] extempore 2012-09-24 05:53 am (UTC)(link)
No deep thoughts from me, just a quick observation: As a Wiki user, I would expect different art forms to be treated separately. On Wikipedia, as far as I know, the "root" of an artwork is taken into consideration, making the page "A_Scanner_Darkly" and subsequently "A_Scanner_Darkly_(film)" for the movie adaption. I don't think this is necessary for fanlore, if we'd like to emphazise equality of fanwork no matter the source of inspiration. So it would be "Title_(fanfic)" and "Title_(podfic)", no matter what came first. (I think current policy is to write just the title of the fanfic without clarification? That would mean quite some editing to change all fanfic pages, should you take this approach.)
So in short: yes to a disambiguation page and to seperate podfic/fanfic/fanart pages.

Considering that, I like Sparcicle's suggestion, because it makes it easier for me as reader to immediately get to the page I'm looking for, if I accidentially landed on the wrong one - or just to see, what else there is under that name.

[identity profile] greerwatson.livejournal.com 2012-09-26 11:16 am (UTC)(link)
When you say, "I think fanlore would need to attract more fanartists who would like to talk about fanart," I totally agree. The fact that there are many articles about fanfiction attracts new editors who are interested in fanfic. I suspect the lack of articles on art may even dissuade fanartists from contributing—they must surely feel that that simply isn't what Fanlore is "about".

When I do an article on a website, I describe its contents; but I also try to discuss its design, i.e. layout and graphics. That's because I care a lot about the presentation of my own website; so it's something I notice about other sites, too.

Basically, the articles in Fanlore reflect the interests of the editors. We just don't seem to have (m)any art editors.
majoline: picture of Majoline, mother of Bon Mucho in Loco Roco 2 (Default)

[personal profile] majoline 2012-09-29 01:35 am (UTC)(link)
This makes the most sense to me.
aethel: (fanlore)

regarding the templates

[personal profile] aethel 2012-09-29 11:38 pm (UTC)(link)
BTW, I've added the grey banners to all the fanwork infobox templates now, not just the podfic template.

(In the spirit of using clearly labeled infoboxes to prevent bad edits, I also added the labels to fandom templates, though no power on this Earth will stop newbies from filling up these pages with canon trivia. On one occasion someone actually removed all the fandom info on a page and replaced it with canon/production info.

http://fanlore.org/wiki/Template:FandombyText
http://fanlore.org/wiki/Template:FandombyText-RPF
http://fanlore.org/wiki/Template:Fandom-RPG
http://fanlore.org/wiki/Template:Fandom
)
ext_3626: (Default)

[identity profile] frogspace.livejournal.com 2012-09-30 12:10 pm (UTC)(link)
I think current policy is to write just the title of the fanfic without clarification?

No. Current policy is to disambiguate pages when there is need for disambiguation. If there is one page with "Title", that page is named "Title". When there is more than one page with "Title", all the respective pages get disambiguated accordingly, including the original page. However, that requires more than one page with "Title" to exist.
extempore: (Default)

[personal profile] extempore 2012-09-30 12:40 pm (UTC)(link)
Hm, but you said: Fanlore naming conventions say: "Articles about individual fanworks should include only the work's title in the page name".

I understand that as: someone creates a page about a fanfic titled "The Awesome Story" and names it The_Awesome_Story. My suggestion would be to name it The_Awesome_Story_(fanfic) from the beginning, no matter, if there is already The_Awesome_Story_(podfic) out there or not. A disambiguation page can be done later, if there are both pages. But that has no impact on the naming of the page.

I don't know, how that would work with the search though. If someone searches by title, they wouldn't find the page, but a search result where the page is listed. Unless there is a disambiguation page called The_Awesome_Fanfic right from the beginning, even though only one link is on it (in which case it would be a forward, I guess? Hurm.
ext_3626: (Default)

[identity profile] frogspace.livejournal.com 2012-09-30 01:48 pm (UTC)(link)
You mean like every new page should be created as "Title (zine)", "Title (website)", "Title (convention)", "Title (filk song)", etc.? How is that supposed to make things easier? o_O We would have to create disambiguation pages for every new page that gets created because otherwise no one would find anything and we would have to rename 20,000 pages. Also, "Title (type)" is not specific enough, as there are often zines of the same title, websites of the same title, stories, of the same title, etc. That's one of the reasons why our disambiguation rules say that the fandom is included when disambiguation is made. So the correct title would be "Title (Fandom website)", "Title (Fandom vid)", etc. Sometimes that's not enough either and disambiguation needs to be something like "Title (Fandom story by author X)" or "Title (Fandom UK zine)". That's not something you can anticipate when you only have one page. Also you seem to assume that only story and podfic would need to be disambiguated and that no other page would have the same title. A page needs to be named "Title" so that when someone makes a new page that has exactly the same title knows that disambiguation is needed. If you name a page "Title (Fandom story)" and the next person makes a page "Title (Fandom zine)" and another one makes a page "Title (Fandom website)", there won't ever be a disambiguation page although one is needed. If someone makes a page for a podfic, they will probably look if there is already a page for the story and might not find it if they don't know the exact disambiguation to look for, and it's even less likely that they will look (or find) all the other pages with that title. Disambiguation and finding pages would be a mess.
extempore: (Default)

[personal profile] extempore 2012-09-30 02:56 pm (UTC)(link)
As far as I understood the concerns, it's about making all fanwork equal and, for example, not hide the podfic on the fanfic page? That only works if all fanwork have the same "weight" in title, either with or without an additional category in brackets. But since the system won't allow pages with the same title, the only other option is to add something to the title. I agree, it's a bit overkill to create a disambiguation page right from the start, but the moment a second page with the same title would be created, not only should then be created the disambiguation page (as it is already done now), but also the original page - the one that was created first - should be renamed to add the type of fanwork*. If that isn't done, then there is a hierarchy, either time-wise (page A was created first) or derivation-wise. At least that's how I would read it.

But if it's not about equality of fanwork, please disregard what I said. =)

_______
* Or other differences. I don't think I have ever seen it, but theoretically there should exist plenty of fanfic with the same title.
anatsuno: a women reads, skeptically (drawing by Kate Beaton) (Default)

[personal profile] anatsuno 2012-09-30 02:58 pm (UTC)(link)
the hierarchy of "created first" is how it's working for now, and is considered egalitarian enough. for my money it's not a problem. /dropping in.
extempore: (Default)

[personal profile] extempore 2012-09-30 03:17 pm (UTC)(link)
In that case I really misunderstood the point of the debate, it seems. *^_^* Apologies.
ext_3626: (Default)

[identity profile] frogspace.livejournal.com 2012-09-30 03:59 pm (UTC)(link)
I agree, it's a bit overkill to create a disambiguation page right from the start, but the moment a second page with the same title would be created, not only should then be created the disambiguation page (as it is already done now), but also the original page - the one that was created first

But that already *is* our current policy. :) As I've said: "When there is more than one page with "Title", all the respective pages get disambiguated accordingly, including the original page."
extempore: (bleh)

[personal profile] extempore 2012-09-30 05:01 pm (UTC)(link)
*facedesks*

Right, no more internet for this blind chicken today. But hey, that's how unnecessary content gets created on the web! XD (At some point, when my brain actually starts working again, I'll go back to read up why there even is a debate in the first place since, clearly, I managed to pick up an entirely wrong meaning.)

Page 3 of 4