Category talk:Meta

From Fanlore
Jump to: navigation, search

What is the difference between this category and the Non-fiction writing category? As I read the category hierarchy, the non-fiction category is restricted to fannish non-fiction writing; how much of this writing WOULDN'T also be defined as "meta"? Is there a narrower definition of meta intended here?--æthel 06:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd use meta for writing about fandom, non-fiction in a broader sense that also includes writing about the source for detail nitpicking, also things without analysis, like episode guides, technical details of starships, or even things like instructions on how to best print a fanzine or format an email. But I am frequently puzzled by the categories.--Ratcreature 12:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Do we have many articles like that? I saw one technical manual, and we have a tiny How To subcategory. I suppose the composition of the wiki might change. Or, hey, what about adding a "canon resource" subcategory? A bunch of Geocities sites actually fall into that category. With more subcategories to choose from, it would be clearer what meta isn't.--æthel 15:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
wherein I answer my own question: letterzines! I still like the idea of adding some sort of "resource" subcategory.--æthel 20:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The non-fiction stuff I've come across: encyclopedias, compendiums, episode guides, puzzle books, cookbooks, trivia zines, letterzines, newsletters, indexes to zines, scrapbooks, a geneology poster, interview zines, zines with articles and analysis (though this might be closer to meta), LoC zines, and Star Trek has a bunch of language guides/technical manuals/how-to books. When I think of meta, I think of a lot of the Darkover stuff, that Supernatural zine ("some of us are watching for the plot") and the book "Boldly Writing." I, too, find the categories confusing. Mrs. Potato Head 21:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

subcategory needed?

There are now 388 pages in this category. Should we create a subcategory just for the fanwork pages (easy to implement by changing the included category on Template:MetaEssay)? Or, rather, could the whole category be redefined as a fanwork category? Because I see maybe three pages here that aren't fanworks.--æþel (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

What are the three fanworks that aren't? --MPH (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd vote for it to be redefined as a fanwork category. What do others think? --MPH (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I spotted a handful of communities (Metafandom, Sga talk, Symposium Blog), a zine (Chosen Ones (Buffy the Vampire zine)), a journal (Saga Journal), a website (Fanfic Symposium), a fanvid (Vogue), a couple of shared universes (ITOWverse, TrekSmut University), an invented fandom (Ghost Soup Infidel Blue) plus meta itself. Oh, and Fail. I think a careful search might reveal several others. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
In that case, how about Category:Meta Fanworks for the subcategory?--æþel (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Meta Essay, perhaps? Websites, zines, journals & vids are all fanworks, but it would be nice to put all the essays together. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
We could do that. Keep in mind that the template was defined as allowing meta stuff other than essays--I don't know if anyone used it for anything other than essays though.--æþel (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
That's not apparent from the rubric! This template should be added to articles about individual meta essays (as opposed to articles covering a general discussion topic) ... title of the essay ... topic of the essay. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
There must be more meta vids on Fanlore. --MPH (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
There are certainly several, but they are harder to classify unambiguously. What (exactly) makes a vid a meta vid? Espresso Addict (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Other fans will know far more than I, but off the top of my head, a meta vid is a vid that comments on fandom in general, or the fandom of a canon source, rather than telling a story within that fandom? --MPH (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty out of vid fandom (I've only ever liked a handful of vids, most of which would be clearly meta) but from the sample I've seen telling a story is rather rare. A lot seem to be about "teh pretty", humour, celebrating a character, or clipping two characters together. The last could be said to be meta, if it implies a non-canonical relationship or comments on the trajectory of the relationship. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Meta says: In vids, the tag meta is occasionally used when images of fans appear along with images of characters, but the term metavid is more commonly used to describe a vid that comments on a specific show, or its fandom, or fandom as a whole. If we have enough of these, we could create Category:Meta Vids!--æþel (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
See Template talk:MetaEssay for a discussion of the scope of the template. We could simply make another template for non-text-essay meta.--æþel (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Does someone know how to make this list alphabetical?--MPH (talk) 23:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

are these meta?

Fandom primers? Sites that were created simply to be glossaries (some examples: IMHO and The Horrifically Honest Guide to Fanfiction Terms? --MPH (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

No, primers and glossaries/dictionaries are not meta. But they are fannish Category:Non-fiction Writing.--aethel (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussions Category

caessius made the suggestion that we should have some kind of subcategory (and maybe a template) for discussions where the initial post wasn't particularly in-depth or analytical, but sparked off an in-depth discussion. A lot of important meta is characterised by the discussions it sparked off, but these are "meta" (particularly on platforms like Twitter or Tumblr) where the initial post(s) themselves are brief and/or lack analysis, so it feels wrong to call them "meta essays" even if they led to a much more involved discussion.

Some examples might be Marvel has created the worst/most unlikeable HERo ever and ao3 mcu a:aou abo bdsm ot3 hs au pwp.

What does everyone think about making this its own subcategory? I think it would still belong under Meta, but it would be a discussion-oriented variety. (If anyone thinks it should be differently categorised, feel free to say so!) -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I think of the original "essay/post" combined with the comments/replies as the actual meta. In other words, the whole thing. I'm not opposed to dividing them into two things (meta that "stands on its own" and meta "that isn't much by itself but sparked a lot of comments"), but I know I wouldn't be able to track that and make those decisions regarding categories as it's too nebulous to me and makes for a lot of judgmental calls and decision making. --MPH (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)