From Fanlore
Jump to navigation Jump to search

the purpose?

I‘m not sure what the purpose is of having all these glossary pages for sex acts. Sex isn‘t a specific fannish thing and the terminology isn‘t particularly fannish. --Doro (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. --MPH (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
So do I. --SecurityBreach (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Per usual if there is fan content involving the subject matter, I don't see how it's not fannish. -Jacksbrak (talk) 03:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
If there's significant fannish content, yes. Trouble is, I don't see that here. --Greer Watson (talk) 04:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
That's another thing, though. This site is supposed to be a constant WIP, right? Where history is always evolving and growing. Stubs are supposedly okay/encouraged. At least when it comes to challenges. But then it seems like everyone wants complete articles right out of the gate. I'm not allowed to plant a seed? I find that to go against every post I've ever seen on tumblr/during challenges which encourage people to add whatever they can, and hopefully watch it grow. - Jacksbrak (talk) 06:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
You're right that we do welcome 'seeds' on Fanlore! But when a seed is planted on Fanlore - to continue the metaphor - then it requires additions from other editors to help it grow. If other editors to Fanlore can't find ways to add to the article that are relevant to Fanlore's remit, then the article will remain a stub forever, which isn't ideal. So, they might initiate a discussion on the Talk page about whether this is a suitable article for Fanlore.
I think it's important to note that querying the purpose of an article on Fanlore isn't an attack on the editor who started it. We have many types of discussions on Fanlore about what is suitable here and the best way for certain types of information to be added to the wiki. If editors disagree about this, it's not intended as a criticism or slight on anyone - it's just part of figuring out how to make Fanlore the most useful resource it can be. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Glossary: "This category lists pages that define fannish vernacular." This is not fannish vernacular and doesn't fit in the glossary category. That these terms appear in fanfic or fanart doesn't change that and it makes no sense to define them on a fannish wiki as a glossary term. If there is enough fannish content, these topics might qualify for a trope page. See Category:Tropes & Genres. --Doro (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Glossary vs. Trope is constructive feedback. But when you get back into spaces where something must be 'enough' it contradicts: "That being the case, anything can have a Fanlore page! We don’t have any sort of requirement that something be “popular” or “notable” enough, because every aspect of fandom, no matter how niche, is a part of fandom culture, and is a part of that story." (source). -Jacksbrak (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I think there is some conflation happening here between what warrants inclusion on Fanlore and what warrants a dedicated page on Fanlore (especially a glossary page, as Doro has highlighted). If people query whether something warrants a page of its own, they're not necessarily saying that this topic has no relevance at all to Fanlore, but that there might not be enough to add to it to flesh out an entire page. The advice you've quoted above was more aimed at educating people about what kinds of topics can be documented on Fanlore. That includes, in this instance, sex or kink in fanworks! But there might be some discussions to be had about whether every single one of those sex acts or kinks needs its own page, depending on how much there is to say about them in a strictly fannish context (and I'm not just talking about examples of fanworks containing those sex acts; a page should contain other things like different fandoms' takes on these, ways that they have evolved over time, etc. etc. If it's hard to come up with information like that for each one, it may not be suitable for an entire page).
It's hard to reflect every single aspect of the nuance of editing Fanlore in a response to a Tumblr Ask; these aren't intended as iron-clad rules for editing Fanlore, but as guidance. There will always be some subjectivity in context, and discussing the ins and outs of that is what Talk pages are useful for :) --enchantedsleeper (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
All of that may be fine... But surely people can see how (almost) immediately jumping onto a page and asking if it matters, or if someone's work matters, etc. etc. is actually just a very good way to deter anyone from editing pages and fleshing out pages, or building the site up at all? Does it really hurt more to just let something be for a while or let folks plant their seeds and see what happens before questioning them/the content? Most of what's occurring is discouragement. Feels like everything I've ever done here is a total waste of my time, and energy, and passion. Hope you all have a good summer/winter, your hemisphere depending... -Jacksbrak (talk) 10:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I also agree that we probably don't need a page for every type of sex act written about, I'm thinking an article about "Sex in Fanworks" or "Kink in Fanworks" might be a better idea, giving an overview, and if something becomes really popular, like A/B/O, to the extent that it's own trope or genre, then we can make a separate article. -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
This is also constructive. I've had negative reactions when trying to put together those kinds of pages too, though. If that's something you want me to compile, though, I'll put all the pages together which I've made recently. Just let me know. - Jacksbrak (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I can see something like Asphyxiation in Fanworks being a legitimate topic for an article, assuming there's enough material to flesh out a page instead of a stub. (Or alternatively, if I correctly read what Kingstoken says, it might be more the size for a section in a wider-scope Kinks in Fanworks page.) I just don't see Asphyxiation as a Glossary page. In itself, asphyxiation isn't specifically fannish. It's when it's used in fanworks that it becomes relevant to Fanlore. --Greer Watson (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I think a Kinks in Fanworks page would be great, that would encompass a lot and could even include a history section that could explore kinks as a whole across time and fandom. If there are specific kinks that have enough for a more detailed page relating to fanworks (like monster fucking or anal sex) that would be fine. Though, I do agree some kinks and sex acts are probably too miniscule for a whole dedicated page, so I still think a Kinks in Fanworks page would be much more informative and comprehensive of the topic, and a good place to include snippets on smaller kinks like asphyxiation. Patchlamb (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I oppose the proposal to merge coverage of kinks into a single article. This could potentially create a distressing situation for many readers. Someone might be fine reading about certain kinks but not others. Like, someone might be interested in orgasm denial or feather kink, but not want to be exposed to material related to knifeplay, daddy kink, or breathplay. Consolidating kink coverage into a single article would make it more difficult for readers to control or limit the content they access. This is especially relevant because some pages include images or links that might be inadvertently clicked.
Fanlore has articles on marginal fan-writers in obscure fandoms. It has articles on forgotten zines with two issues. It has articles on regional cons from the 1970s. Trust me, I'm not complaining! I love diving into those articles and exploring the fascinating history of fandom. I'm just saying it seems odd to me to want to apply a Wikipedia-like standard of notability in this topic area but not elsewhere. If we can find room for two-issue zines, I think we can find room for kinks.
I get that a line will inevitably need to be drawn somewhere. Highly personal or specific kinks like "Kissing [Character]'s Neck Moles" or whatever probably don't warrant separate articles. But things with canonical tags on AO3 that a widely used throughout different fandoms are probably pretty safe. Night Rain (talk) 05:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

New Opinions?

Really this page doesn't seem to have any purpose other than increasing the number of edits by a single publisher and possibly linking to a particular fandom. Because what's the point of creating separate kink pages with almost no content, which remain a stub even with attempted edits when it could be linked to another page as part of a section Or modify it to be more comprehensive? -- Ellakbhesse (talk) 13:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I have been skimming through the kink pages created by eatacrayola and while some of them have room for standalone development (the oral sex one for example is quite detailed), I don't see how this one in particular does and many other stubs too. I don't have ideas about how to flesh this one out other than adding fanarts? In fanfiction Asphyxiation, unlike the oral sex example I talked about earlier, isn't normally the focus, it's just one more aspect in the list of kinks so it's hard to find an angle other than, "examples of consensual asphyxiation", "examples of non consensual", "examples where one of the persons involved suffocated to death" I don't know. Just brainstorming. This very thing I just said can be done too in a "Kinks in Fandom" article cause apart from examples, there isn't much to add really.--Alpha (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
The conversation on the usage of this page does seem to have died off a bit. Now that it's been almost a year since the last discussion, have any opinions on it changed? I don't think any actual consensus was accomplished. The last conversation was definitively very divided, with some of us wanting to consolidate smaller kinks into one larger page on kink, and others seeing small pages with little fandom-specific content as fine (since we do arguably have a no notability requirement). To be honest, my opinion on this specific page is if there still isn't enough fandom-specific content that can be added to it, that "asphyxiation" just isn't fandom related enough to warrant it's own dedicated page. I'm not sure that I could argue for it being a trope either. I'm still for making one main Kinks in Fandom page. Night Rain had a good point about limited contact with certain explicit content, but I'm wondering if that even matters on a wiki. After all, wouldn't someone who clicks a page called "Kinks in Fandom" already expect to see a myriad of kinks on the page, and for the page to discuss kinks at length? There is already a Kink page as well, though it seems a bit barebones right now. Patchlamb (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes Night Rain had a good point, but he believes that if the kink page is reedited it could stop being so barebones and start to contain the asphyxiating link and its derivatives. Eatacrayola created this, and dozens of pages that could very well be deleted or merged with others, as they alone have very shallow or unnecessary content. Apart from that in most of them he focuses exclusively on one particular fandom or artist. I love fluffy and stuff like that, but I'm not going to go around randomly creating dozens of pages for each strand of the fluffy kink, it would be illogical -- Ellakbhesse (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
He made it very clear on his old user page User talk:Jacksbrak that he was going to add everything he could about it mainly links and more links, pages and more pages. from what i noticed, many had to be edited by being moved or deleted. Maybe it was the desire to help your fandom and be an active editor at Fanlore, but Christ is a lot of separate content that could be in other places. So I'm in favor of this page being merged -- Ellakbhesse (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

List of sex Glossary terms and my ideas about them.

  • Dry Humping, doesn't seem standalone enough to me to have a whole page by itself. It's normally part of run-of-the-mill foreplay, or just characters making out. Might fit as part of a Non-penetrative sex practices kind of article along with other related terms. Or be renamed "Non-penetrative-sex" and add some meta on the subject. Sexualized Saturdays: A Little Less Penetration, A Little More Action, Sexuality in K/S Fiction: Sensuality vs. Genitality
  • Blasphemy, I think this one could stand by itself. Will try to add some stuff.
  • Ahegao, I don't know much about this one but it's an old term in the anime fandom and hentai more specifically and common to find it in R-18 doujinshi. Could use a bit of history of the term and a "examples needed".
  • Undressing, this one has potential too. Will add something and see how it goes.
  • Cock Warming, too specific. In fanfics it doesn't have enough focus. In fanarts isn't obvious enough, the example fanart looks like a normal blowjob to me. Would be good to merge with Sex Position in the Penetrative sex section.
  • Shower Sex, can stand by itself, it's a popular trope and very versatile, I just think the page should be named "Water Sex" and include Bath Sex, Jacuzzi, River, Sea, Swimming Pool etc instead of making everything else synonym of Shower sex, which it isn't.
  • Degradation, would look better in the BDSM article or change name to Dirty talk and make it broader.
  • Stepping, this is such a specific kink. I'd move to BDSM definitely.
  • Gangbang, I would leave this one as it is, and put a stub label and a more examples wanted label.
Alpha could the first term be added to rimming? -- Ellakbhesse (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Ellakbhesse you mean the Dry Humping? if it's Dry Humping I wouldn't add it to rimming since it's clothed sex and rimming requires clothes removal --Alpha (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
I think I confused the name of the terms pardon -- Ellakbhesse (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
I do think there's an argument for deciding on a case-by-case basis whether different kinks should have individual pages or not. Like, I wouldn't have a separate page for 'Blueberry Inflation' for instance, but putting it on an Inflation page (alongside its place on the CATCF page it's on now) could work, as I think there's enough to mention in relation to fandom there.
  • The Dry Humping page could be added to a page for Humping for instance, depending on how many other kinks would come under it, and there was enough to talk about it.
  • I agree about changing Shower Sex to Water Sex.
  • Creating a Dirty Talk page and adding Degradation to it as an example would work, and stuff surrounding different fictional settings or fictional cultures' use of dirty talk could be included.
-- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

page fixed?

I added some fannish material to the page before I saw the discussion here. I'm not sure it will ever be a very long page, but I did find some interesting interactions between canon and fanworks on the subject of asphyxiation: non-erotic Star Wars choking getting eroticized in fanworks, discussions of the erotic subtext of Star Trek choking, a one-off line on The X-Files about "auto-erotic asphyxiation" -- I don't know if it led to more breathplay in fanfic, but fans sure did talk about that line.--aethel (talk) 04:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Not much has been decided yet but your additions gave me an idea so thank you for the inspiration! - Alpha (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)