Category talk:Pulp Fiction

This category's name and placement is confusing--it is placed under "Fandoms by Canon Type", but Fandoms by Canon Type subcategories are for pages that are fandom overviews themselves, where as this category contains no fandom pages that are pulp fiction canons--they are all pages relevant to Pulp Fiction as a genre fandom like Science Fiction is a genre fandom. For example, Live action TV is under fandoms by canon type, and it has pages like Battlestar Galactica, a tv show which has a fandom. Looking at the wikipedia page for examples, the only page that belongs in this category as presently defined would be Tarzan. Instead, the problem could be fixed if this category were moved under Category:Fandoms by Community, where Category:Science Fiction Fandom lives.--aethel (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Not directly related to your concerns, but this category probably needs a rename as-is to avoid confusion with the film. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 04:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The issue seems to be that there's a gap in our coverage. We currently don't have many articles on pulp-fiction works. Expanding our coverage in that area seems like a cool idea. Otherwise, I think this category is fine where it is. "Fandoms by Canon Type" is a bit of a mix, but a fictional genre/medium seems like it fits alongside "Radio," "Video Games," and "Webcomics." One category that doesn't seem to fit is "Celebrities & Real People." How can people be canons? Perhaps we should revisit the the term "Canon Type." It doesn't quite hit the mark in every case. I also think Category:Fandoms by Genre could be helpful. Some things can be considered both genres and communities, and it would be helpful to categorize by both. Night Rain (talk) 05:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)