Category talk:Relationships

From Fanlore
Jump to: navigation, search

Why was this changed from Pairings to Relationships? Was there a discussion on Fanlore that I missed? --Doro (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah - several people agreed (I don't remember who, nor do I know how to access that discussion post-move) that since the pairings category also included threesomes/moresomes and the occasional gen relationship, it made more sense to generalize. --PhoenixFalls (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Where was this discussion? Fanlore always goes from the general to the specific, not the other way around. The whole point of the term pairings is that it is about a sexual/romantic relationship. If there is a category missing for gen relationships (friendships, familial, etc.), then we need one for gen relationships. If there is one missing for moresomes, then we need one for moresomes. The rule for categories is that we need 10-15 pages to make a category. I suggest we change this back as soon as possible and add the missig cats and templates. --Doro (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Here is the discussion: Template talk:RelationshipProfile, User_talk:Aethel#Relationship_Template_.26_Categories. The idea is that Relationships is broader than Pairings because pairings are two-person ships. Pairings also implies not-gen, whereas a "relationship" is anything between people, platonic or non. Though we could have separate categories for Ships and Gen Friendship (though not all gen relationships are friendly). Switching to Relationships is the same change that was advocated for and made on the AO3 several years ago, and I understood the only objection at the time was from people who wrote noncon being skeeved by the interaction between rapist and victim being labeled a relationship.--æþel (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Is that true though about pairings implying two-person-ships? It's not true in my own fandom experience. Where I hang out the word "paring" always implies "whoever is paired up in a non-gen fic", so yes, in a romantic and shippy way, no matter if it's about CharacterA/CharacterB or about an OT3 or an OT6. Threesomes are pairings. That gen fic is labeled with relationships is something that happens in smarms (where you could argue it's a fine line to being shippy) and happened in friendship fic (but depending on fandom they way it was written out would use another symbol than / like &. and Sometimes CharacterA&CharacterB still means shippy, just not in a sexual way), but there is quite a bit of debate if something that has pairings is actually gen fic, so I would say there is no real consensus, but fandom (again in my experience) definitely seems to use "pairing" quite consistently for romantic involvement of any kind. I understand the change on AO3 for archivist reasons and don't object to it, as now people can also make it easier to label and search for non-romantic relationships, but in my opinion that hasn't affected that "relationships" used in the proposed sense is not how wide areas of fandom would expect it to be used. Most of my fandoms that are on AO3 would still talk about "pairings" and "ships" as romantic relationships off the archive. So I'd argue that we can't take the way AO3 names their tags as indication of how we should categorize things here on fanlore. Splitting up "Ships" and "Gen Relationships" (?) would make more sense to me.--Fantomas (talk) 08:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I feel like my parts of fandom do only use "pairing" to refer to two-person ships. But I'd be comfortable with having "Ships" and "Gen Relationships" as categories -- I agree that it makes sense to (attempt to) keep gen relationships as a separate category from sexual/romantic relationships. --PhoenixFalls (talk) 08:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I started a template for gen relationships: Template:RelationshipGen. I found only four gen pages: Aragorn & Legolas Friendship, Darcy Lewis & Tony Stark, Emma & David, Kirk-Spock. Before we create separate gen and ship categories, we should find out if people are combining gen and ship info on the same page. It occurs to me now that maybe we don't have more gen information because we don't have a category for it....--æþel (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it might have discouraged editors from creating pages focused on gen relationships that the only relationship template was called "Pairings." I know for me, before this conversation came up, I was wondering how to, for instance, fit info about all the Elementary fans who refuse to ship Joan & Sherlock because they find a male/female friendship more appealing onto the Joan/Sherlock page I'm planning on creating; I was also considering whether it made sense to make a trope page for "Stilinski Family Feels" for Teen Wolf. But with a gen relationships template available, I can just create "Joan and Sherlock" and "Sheriff & Stiles Stilinski" pages to capture that information. --PhoenixFalls (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Is that true though about pairings implying two-person-ships? Where I come from (in terms of fannish history), pairing is a romantic/erotic relationship between two or more people. :) Also, I agree that the reason whey there are so few gen relationship pages is that we didn't include it in our structure. Reading through this very informative discussion, I suggest the following:
1. Change Category:Relationships back to Category:Pairings and do the same for the corresponding template
2. Add a parent Category:Relationships of which the Category:Pairings is a subcat
3. Create a Category:Moresomes (also a subcat to Category:Relationships) and a corresponding template
4. Switch the pairings template to the moresomes template for those pairings where fannish culture doesn't include moresomes under pairings in their respective fandoms
5. Add the Category:Moresomes to those moresome pages that use the pairings template (because fannish culture there includes threesomes, etc. under pairings)
6. Create a GenRelationships template and Category:Gen Relationships subcat for the respective pages
7. If more subcats are needed (for example for different types of gen relationships), we can later add them when there are enough pages for new cats
Thoughts? --Doro (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
That sounds like a very sensible solution to me.--Fantomas (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
The only thing I'm not sure on is what about the subcategories from the different fandoms, would they stay "Category:The Avengers Relationships" or would they go back to Category:The Avengers Pairings, if so than the Darcy Lewis & Tony Stark would no longer have a category as would the Steve/Sam/Bucky/Natasha page. Or will Category:The Avengers Relationships stay and then make subcategories of Category:The Avengers Moresomes and Category:The Avengers Gen Relationships & Category:The Avengers Pairings? The second option I really like better, that way since we don't have enough pages yet that would be a good "dumping" ground until we did.--Harpie (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be hard to define which fandoms accept the term pairing for poly ships and which don't. It may depend more on the fan's personal fannish history/age/platform than the fandom. It would be less confusing just to go by the number of characters involved. We could have a structure like this so everyone can find what they're looking for:

Category:Relationships

Category:Gen Relationsips
Category:Moresomes
Category:Pairings
Category:Moresomes
--æþel (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Another idea: put all ships (twosomes, threesomes, etc.) in the Pairings category, but also have a category just for the moresomes. And we can add both categories to the 3-or-more template so no one has to remember to do it manually. I started Template:Moresome.--æþel (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
As someone who uses "pairings" to include moresomes, I like this solution.
Harpie, I agree with your second suggestion re: Fandom relationships subcats: start with Relationships and split into Pairings, Moresomes, and Gen Relationships if/when we have enough pages (the criteria is usually 10 or 15 articles in each new subcat, which no current Relationships category currently has). ----sparc 00:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Sparcicle! I also use Moresomes as pairings but I think it would better to just leave "Moresomes" Category outside the pairings category just because it would make more sense, why have "two" categories for it? When "Moresome" states more than two people in a relationship, so I would include all threesomes and any other "moresomes". So I suggest:

Category:Relationships

Category:Gen Relationsips
Category:Moresomes
Category:Pairings
And thus just leave out the second Moresome category.--Harpie (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I could also see a category for Enemies or maybe Rivalries; while fandom doesn't normally tag for those, it's certainly a feature in many fics. Off the top of my head: Snape~Sirius (and "Snape and anyone who's not the current main pairing"), Robin~Two-Face, Damian Wayne~Tim Drake, Watson~Mycroft, Stark~Fury. Elfwreck (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I think that would be more considered a Gen relationship or an actual pairing, just write in "Enemies" or "Rivals" for the Canon information.--Harpie (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I like this solution -- having a "moresomes" subcategory of "pairings" AND a "moresomes" category alongside the "pairings" category just seems like it's setting up for needless duplication (where people put ships in both places) or edit wars (where people keep switching a ship from one place to another). If there are some fandoms that really never use the "moresomes" term and call all ships pairings regardless of how many people are in them, maybe we can just put a note at the top of the pairings template that indicates the term may sometimes be used for larger-than-two-person-ships? That way someone who really wants to create a page for a threesome that's in the "pairing" category they feel free to do so, but people who are comfortable using the "moresomes" template/category don't have to question where the hell they're supposed to put it.
Also, I think we do have enough more-than-two-person ships to create a moresomes category now; I count the following: Ariadne/Arthur/Eames, Bucky Barnes/Steve Rogers/Natasha Romanoff/Sam Wilson, Darcy Lewis/Jane Foster/Thor Odinson, Fraser/Vecchio/Kowalski, Harry/Ron/Hermione, Hermione/Sirius/Remus, Hermione/Snape/Remus, House/Wilson/Cuddy, John/Jennifer/Rodney, Lily/Remus/Severus, Lily/Remus/Sirius, OT4 (Stargate Atlantis pairing), OT4/5 (Merlin pairing), Sara Lance/Oliver Queen/Felicity Smoak, and Team 7 (though it looks like this page is part glossary page and part gen relationship page, so maybe not). That's fifteen pages -- I don't know all the fandoms here, so it could be that for some of them people in the fandoms would prefer that they remain in the pairing category rather than getting moved to a new moresomes category (we should probably bring it up on the discussion pages before making any moves?) but even if some of them ended up staying in pairings we'd probably still be over ten. (And if we're just under, I've been meaning to make Stark Spangled Banner and Sour Skittles pages for a while. . . *wink*) --PhoenixFalls (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Just to be clear, under the present plan, all moresome pages would be in both the Pairings and Moresomes categories, regardless of which template they use.--æþel (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Huh. Maybe I need to see it in action to get how that would work. So frex when editors start a new threesome page, they'd pick whichever template they felt more comfortable in (moresome or pairing), then manually add both the Cat:Moresomes and Cat:Moresomes(subcat of Cat:Pairings)? --PhoenixFalls (talk) 02:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
There is only one Moresomes category. Since some fans expect "Pairings" to include moresomes, we can include every page about a 3+ ship in both the Pairings category and the Moresomes category. Previously I had suggested that we cross-categorize the Moresomes category, but I think Harpie's hierarchy above causes less confusion. I have included both categories in Template:Moresome. I think it is easier for gardeners to manage fixing/adding templates if all moresomes get the moresomes template instead of starting a debate about which template to use on every existing page, mainly since most people don't care about templates and won't respond, but if the moresome page has the pairing template (includes just the Pairings category), you can manually add the Moresomes category so the ship page won't get lost.--æþel (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I got started creating the Gen Relationships and Pairings categories since those seem uncontroversial and simple to revert. How does it look? Currently most pages are still in the Pairings category. Are we ok to create Category:Moresomes?--æþel (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks great to me! (Also, thanks for the explanation, I don't know why I was having such a hard time grasping what you guys were saying.) --PhoenixFalls (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Loving it so far æþel! Great job :) --Harpie (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I can't even find the threads anymore on this page, sorry! /o\ As someone who just found out about this conversation because the template was just changed back, I want to answer this: Is that true though about pairings implying two-person-ships? My answer is yes, absolutely, many polyshippers have felt quite distanced, ignored, and otherwise upset by the use of "pairings" to generally mean "all relationships", because it makes the default into "pair" and makes polyships an afterthought (much in the same way femslashers often get upset about "slash" being used to mean all homosexual relationships). I'm not even one of those who has a particularly strong reaction, but I was still unhappy enough to make the request in the first place.
Those who primarily ship pairings probably don't see that as much, simply because of the spaces where they hang out? And there is certainly a range of fannish reactions depending on who's in the group in question and its history. That said, I think offering categories for everyone should be fine, as long as categories are applied based on number of characters in the ship and subcats continue to be moved over to say "Relationships" (e.g., "Avengers Relationships").
I see that the Gen and Moresome templates are set up already - thank you! I'll start swapping pages now. Oh! And could someone with gardening access please move these two pages moved back to their original names? [OT4/5 (Merlin pairing)] to [OT4/5 (Merlin BBC)] and [OT4 (Stargate Atlantis pairing)] to [OT4 (Stargate Atlantis)]? Thanks! -the old briar pipe (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

An aside on categorising gen

[Via the dreamwidth post] This is something I've been wondering for a while -- would it be sensible to also have a category for gen, outside the relationships umbrella? There are plenty of gen works that aren't about relationships of any kind. If there is a category created for gen relationships, then it needs to be made clear in the rubric what it refers to, as one obvious meaning is non-explicit shipping stories, whereas I think you're going for friendship, familial relationship &c. It might be easier to understand if under gen relationships there were at least a further two categories: friendship & familial relationships. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

We can add a note at the top of the Gen Relationship category to say it's for any platonic relationships between characters that fans are interested in, including epic friendships as well as family relationships, enemies, rivals, and reluctant allies.
I'm not sure what would belong in an unqualified Gen category, unless you are thinking of Gen Fandom (is that a thing?). We don't generally categorize fanwork pages by genre, only by fandom. We do have some categories for gen, slash, and het fanzines in specific fandoms, and also Category:Star Trek TOS K/S Fanfiction, just because we have so many thousands of these articles and wanted to split them up further, but it's not standard practice. Most of the fanzine categories are grouped as "Gen & Het" because the gen label used to include het.
At the moment, we only have 4 gen relationship pages, so there's no need to make subcategories yet.--æþel (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Gen fandom is definitely a thing, yes. The article I most wanted a gen tag for was the gen recs community Gensplosion, but there must be lots of others -- just not readily findable because there's never been a category. Off the top of my head just in HP fandom there's Jetamors' Page o' Gen Recs, Omniocular, Springtime Gen, Femgenficathon, HP Friendship. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
We could make a Category:Gen Fandom as a subcategory under Category:Fandoms by Community. My only concern is that, broadly defined, gen fandom would be all of Fandom that isn't ship-focused, which is most of Fandom. Maybe Category:Gen Fanworks Fandom? Or just define it narrowly. (You can also make a list page, though it's better not to duplicate effort if we can figure out a category.)--æþel (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd prefer Gen Fandom by analogy with Slash Fandom, but if you don't want people to add it to individual works, it would need a rubric. A list page would be much less easy for others to find, I think, so likely to remain biased towards my fandoms. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I set up the Gen Fandom category. When we create the Gen Relationships category, it can go under here as well as under Category:Relationships. We should probably set up Slash Fandom and Femslash Fandom categories as well at some point.--æþel (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! (Doubly so for doing all the heavy lifting!) Now I just need to start some articles to prove its utility. Femslash fandom is a great idea; slash fandom ... might get a little out of hand... Espresso Addict (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Thinking some more on how to implement this -- if I read you correctly you're suggesting not adding it to genzines, unless there's a fandom sub-category already in place? What about archives? I've added it to a few but I'm not sure there's a difference between an anthology zine & a multi-author archive, except in format. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Anthology zines are fanworks, and archives are not (or at least not as defined by Fanlore's category structure). If we started adding fanwork pages to the Gen Fandom page, it would become overwhelmed and useless (there are thousands of gen zines!). I hesitate to suggest even creating Category:Gen Zines as we'd have to categorize thousands of pages (though if you're willing to do it, I don't see a problem :)). A subcategory for Gen Fanfiction might be easier to manage in terms of volume of pages.--æþel (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I've long thought that the category structure set up when Fanlore was young is serving the much larger site poorly. Just because the task of adding genre categories to fanworks seems overwhelmingly large doesn't mean it isn't a sensible thing to do. There again my RSI thinks it's a terrible notion! If we are going to have a pass through, say, fanfiction, for a start, categorising it all by pairing-or-lack-of-it "genre", we probably ought to agree what categories should be added, and to what degree, say, a gen story with a background het relationship gets double tagged. While we're at it, it might make sense to consider whether we also want to categorise for genre, length &c&c. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Having a plan before we start categorizing would definitely save time. I think the original reluctance to categorize by fanwork genre, apart from not anticipating that there would be so many fanwork pages, was a combination of not wanting to have to interpret/judge what genre it was and also not having to deal with multiple fannish terms for similar concepts. If we have a Slash Fanfiction category, I recommend we only apply it to fic that is actually called slash by its author or by its intended readership; we would not apply it to yaoi/BL or femslash. What non-ship-related genres are you thinking of?--æþel (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
A broadbrush approach might include just, say, action adventure, complete AU, fork-in-the-road AU, character study, crossover/fusion, humour, romance, PWP/erotica, & possibly drama, but it's a bit hard to define and could be rolled in with action. But it might be worth being a lot more fine grained and including things such as epistolary, first time, conversation piece, casefic, bodyswap, undercover in a gay bar &c&c that are relatively easy to spot/define and where authors aren't likely to be too upset by the classification. It would make it easier to find stories that are classic examples of tropes across fandoms without needing to add them all to the top-level trope page (which gets cluttered). I agree we need to be careful about classifying something into areas the author didn't intend. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I think standard genres like romance and drama would be harder to judge unless the fic was actually labeled that way. But AUs definitely! Doro already made a category for Merlin AUs now that you mention it. We could have a look at the trope/genre pages and see which ones are overflowing with examples.--æþel (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Or have no examples at all because the genre is so popular... On the pairings classification, could we use m/m, m/f, f/f to get round the nomenclature problem? Or is "/" not usable in categories? Espresso Addict (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I think using the community's term is more meaningful for Fanlore's documentation of fannish communities than simply indicating gender of the ship. Terms like femslash and slash refer to specific genres with traditions within a particular community/fandom, and they could be subcategories of those fandoms (e.g. Category:Femslash Fandom could have the subcategory Category:Femslash Fanfiction). We don't need to replicate the classification scheme of a fanfiction archive.--æþel (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)