Talk:Billy Boyd

Discussion of Page vs. Subpage

as of March, 2010, the consensus is to keep Real People at the top level

This should be moved to and redirect to [[Lord of the Rings RPF/Billy Boyd]] --Ari 19:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Second the move and redirect, though maybe this page shouldn't exist at all, and pages that mention Billy could just have a link to his page on IMDB or Wikipedia? What are the guidelines for this kind of thing? --Sophinisba 16:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that he's in enough fic to get his own page, along with the other guys, but it belongs under Lotrips --msilverstar 19:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think actors should be subpages, because unlike characters, they're not limited to any one fandom. Some of them are, obviously, but there are many who aren't.

As for what should be on the page, the same as any other fandom. Tiny bit of canon, and then lots of fandom stuff. Not every actor will need a page, but I think ones who have big RPF fandoms definitely do. --Kyuuketsukirui 23:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

distinguish between real people and RPF characters?

Have editors established a way of handling RPF characters? I haven't seen any character pages for RPF fandoms yet, but I think they should be treated the same as other characters. For example, we could move the Lotrips info here to a [[Lotrips/Billy Boyd]] page and add a link to it with a note that Billy Boyd also appears in RPF. One actor could potentially figure in multiple RPF fandoms.--æthel 03:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this ever since you posted that question and I'm still not sure how I would answer it, but my gut feeling tells me that there shouldn't be separate pages for people and RPF characters based on these people. After all we don't make separate pages for the way characters are displayed in canon and the way they are treated in fanfic; the only difference to me seems to be that in RPF fandoms the "canon character" is a real person. I would suggest to add pairings as subpages but leave the people pages top level without removing the RPF information. Especially because one person can be part of more than one RPF fandom without actually being two different characters. --Doro 17:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

But for me at least, there's a squick factor in adding a lot of RPF information to a page that's ostensibly about an actual person. That is, it seems inappropriate, or at least potentially confusing, to discuss fanon characteristics at length or talk about the prevalence of wingfic and mpreg about the character on the same page that discusses a real person's professional work or interaction with fans/fandom. The fact that no pages about actors currently include reflections on how everyone always writes the character as a bottom, for example, suggests to me that we need a separate page so that editors can feel free to cut loose and add all that stuff.--æthel 03:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I feel the same way, but then I'm not an RPF fan. I don't mind if the RPF is mentioned like on the David Hewlett page, but anything detailed would defintely feel weird to me. If actual RPF fans think it is important to keep these two aspects together, I'd very much like there to be two clearly separate sections that do not overlap much on the page.--RatCreature 04:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I am an RPF fan, and as long as we distinguish between RL as canon, as opposed to fannishness and fanworks, I think it's perfectly reasonable to have one page. --msilverstar 03:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm a longtime RPF fan (since 2001), and I concur with msilverstar above. This is a fandom wiki--if we're not talking about the fandom, including the creative fandom, surrounding these individuals, then those pages are basically Wikipedia pages, and then what's the point? Maybe it could be a standard part of the RPF "character" template to reiterate the difference between canon/"real life" and fanon/fiction: not a separate page, but a label, or a standard subsection title? Ignaz 03:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with msilverstar and Ignaz, particularly Ignaz' suggestion of standardising the subsection titles. Perhaps something like "Billy Boyd and Fandom" and "Billy Boyd in RPF Works"? Or keep the info about the person in the intro section and subsequent sections could be: Billy Boyd in Lord of the Rings, Billy Boyd in Lord of the Rings RPF. Dom Monaghan might have those two subsections plus Dominic Monaghan in Lost. I've been in RPF fandoms since 2002. Vera 13:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Standardising the subsection titles makes sense. So we'd see a heading like "[Name] in RPF Fanworks", with subheadings like "LOTR RPF" and "Lost RPF"? What sort of information should go under "Billy Boyd and Fandom" or "Billy Boyd in Lord of the Rings"?--æthel 14:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think the page right now is pretty much the way it should be. It begins with general information about the actor and in the "In Fandom" section it mentions all the relevant aspects of fannish engagement like RPF and interest in other roles he played, including slash in other fandoms based on actor crossovers. If there is Lost RPF, it should be mentioned too, but I don't think there needs to be more detail because that is what the fandom and pairing pages are for. Maybe we could sort the resources by actor info/fannish resource but other than that I don't see anything that would need subheadings. o_O --Doro 19:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

lotr cat!

Why was the LOTR cat re-added? Billy Boyd is not a character in the Lord of the Rings, and the policy on fandom categories at present is not to add people or fans to fandom categories. If it makes sense to add actors and authors and directors, etc., to the fandoms they created or were connected to, then I need to review a lot of my page edits... (and change the Help:Fandom Categories page)--æthel 19:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. I've edited the help page and will re-add lotr people.--æthel 02:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to add fandom cats to actors because the reason the actor page is there in the first place is because an actor is connected to a particular fandom. Some actors are connected to more than one fandom but not every movie/TV show they ever appeared in has its own fandom and even if a show has a fandom it doesn't mean the actor is relevant to that fandom (however, sometimes the only reason there is some fannish activity is because an actor from another fandom appears in a minor role; in that case I still wouldn't tag them with that fandom cat). --Doro 12:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)