Talk:Bandom (Decaydance+, My Chemical Romance)/2008 Archive

From Fanlore
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Moving Bandom Page

Fanlore Gardeners, is it possible to move the current page to Bandom (Decaydance+, My Chemical Romance Source Text) so this page can become a disambiguation page? --wistfuljane 06:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed that the Bandom (Decaydance+, My Chemical Romance Source Text) page already has a stub set up. Do I need to delete that stub or do you want to copy this text over there, and then have me delete this page? --rache 13:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I think delete the stub because we want to preserve the history and discussion of this page? Thanks! --wistfuljane 22:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete and move is complete. You can go ahead and create the disamb page for Bandom now. If you need anything else, just reapply the 'Attention Gardeners' template. --rache 22:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much! --wistfuljane 22:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Creating Band-related Pages as per Zvi's proposal

I created a disambiguation page for Bandslash with links to

But I didn't know where to move the text paragraph?

As for Bandom, I think it's better to wait for it being moved by Fanlore Garderners than manually moving it?

--wistfuljane 15:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Band-related Pages re-organization, mark 1

Bandom would redirect to Bandom (disambiguation)

  • Bandom (disambiguation) would list each of the following
    • Bandom (Pete Wentz Source Text) would be Fandom of fans who are primarily fannish about Fall Out Boy, My Chemical Romance, Panic At The Disco, and/or interconnected bands. I AM NOT WEDDED TO IDENTIFYING THIS BY PETE WENTZ. Early 21st C. emopopppunk would work. Fueled by Ramen would work. Any terminology proposed by people who actually follow this would work. I am just using Pete Wentz as a working title. (Although, in my heart of hearts, I want people to call it the RamenAlliance. But that's just sort of a wish. If you pick something else entirely, that's cool.)
    • Bandom (Music Source Text) this would be Fandom of fans who are fannish about one or more bands.
    • Bandom/Terminology Debate we would keep the link to the subpage, because you can't do double redirects, and Bandom Terminology Debate is already a redirect.

(I don't actually see how Jane's third definition requires a page; it's just the adjectival usage of the noun which identifies the communities. Thought experiment: replace bandom with Trek, and see if that definition still seems necessary.)

Bandslash would redirect to Bandslash (disambiguation)

  • Bandslash (disambiguation) would list
    • Bandslash (Pete Wentz Source Text) would redirect to Bandom (Pete Wentz Source Text)
    • Bandslash (Music Source Text) would redirect to Bandom (Music Source Text)
    • Bandslash (Slash Source Community) would be Fandom of fans who slash members of one or more bands. The reason the other two usages are 'source text' and this one is 'community' is to follow the practice of categorizing communities already established on the wiki. If it's around a particular canon, they call it source text. If it's around a particular practice, they call it community. If you want to name it differently, that's fine, I'm just saying why I did it the way I did here.
    • Bandslash (Fan activity) would be Fiction, art, vids, and other fan produced texts or objects about or involving members of one or more bands. with a note similar to the one on popslash that although it's called slash, this term is also used to refer to het, gen, and femslash.

Band Fic and Bandfic would redirect to Bandslash (Fan activity)

That is my proposal. Please comment away. I just felt the need to unindent us.--zvi 17:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The proposal sounds excellent. Thank you for putting it together, zvi!
re: third definition: you're right, I don't think we need another page for it.
re: Bandom (Pete Wentz Source Text): Some other possible term in place of Pete Wentz:
- 6 Degrees --> Bandom (6 Degrees Source Text)
- 6DW (or 6 Degrees of Wentz) --> Bandom (6DW Source Text)
- FBR+ (or Fueled By Ramen Plus) --> Bandom (FBR+ Source Text)
- DD+ (or Decaydance Plus) --> Bandom (DD+ Source Text)
Those are some of the term I've seen referred to this group. The con to the last three terms would be that it might emphasize on a central group a little bit.
My own personal suggestion would be Subset --> Bandom (Subset Source Text), but again, personal. --wistfuljane 18:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Jane, I'm not clear on what you mean by Subset --> Bandom (Subset Source Text) Most of the things in parentheses don't make sense as independent pages, or were you thinking of just, whatever that RamenAlliance page is eventually named, we should have a redirect going to it from RamenAlliance to Bandom(Ramen Alliance).
My only problem with FBR+ or DD+ is that it obscures the other really big band in this thing, which is MCR. What if we called it (Decaydance, My Chemical Romance, Etc.)?--zvi 19:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I wasn't thiking of them as independent pages! They were just terms I'm suggesting to replace Pete Wentz in the Bandom (Pete Wentz Source Text); I indicated both the terms I'm suggesting and what they would like so we could see how/if they alll fit. Subset and 6 Degrees as in subset of Bandom and 6 Degrees of Bandom.
re: FBR+ or DD+: Yes, that's the thing, most of terms used to refer to this group of bandom doesn't really indicate that MCR is one of the core bands. I like what you suggested, maybe (My Chemical Romance, Decaydance+) with the plus to indicate other bands? --wistfuljane 20:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I am cool with the comma and the plus. I would prefer to put them in alphabetical order. Do you have a reason for doing it in the other direction?--zvi 04:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
My reason is much of a flow issue. (My Chemical Romance, Decaydance+) as in (My Chemical Romance, Decaydance + other bands); the reverse wouldn't flow as well to me? --wistfuljane 10:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I tend to think standard practices (like alphabetical order) are more important in section headings than prosody. I'm not ready to go to the mat about it, but I don't think one flows particularly better than the other, and I do think people expect things to be in alphabetical order unless the different order conveys some other information. In this case, not knowing that it was a question of rhythm, I would assume that MCR had some sort of primacy over the Decaydance bands, and I don't think that's something we intend to convey. Correct me if I'm wrong.--zvi 21:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly about the order either (only about the plus!) so I would be okay with the standard practices, in this case alphabetical order, taking precedences. --wistfuljane 22:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I've been using "popular use" to distinguish the terms. Does that fly, or have I just earned myself even more eternal wrath than I already possess? -- iggy
It's not wrath-inducing, but, I've been deep in this discussion for two days, and I have no idea if popular use is supposed to indicate 'Pete Wentz' or 'Anyone who ever picked up a guitar'. I mean, from the physical placement of your comment on this page, I'm guessing you mean 6dW, but not just from the term, no.--zvi 04:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Not YOUR wrath. The wrath of the "bandom = all band fandoms" crowd. When I say "popular use," I mean the definition that is most commonly associated with the term's use. I'm guessing that most of the time, when people say "bandom," they're talking about Pete Wentz et al. So yes, that's what I mean. Or we could do specific/general. Also, how do I sign my name so it looks like yours? -ig
Well, which one is popular depends where the reader is coming from, so in that sense, unless you're clarifying which use the wiki page considers "popular" (which you did, with the "Less commonly...") it's not all that clear. "Wrath" is a bit strong of a word, but I do dislike using "popular use" because that's so dependent on where you do your fanning. And to get the signature, either click the box between the cancelled out W and the - at the top of the edit box, or just copy/paste "--~~~~" --HectorRashbaum 04:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Let's say our reader is coming from everywhere. She's an omniscient, omnipresent being. Or, in practical terms, let's say she's coming from Google, where the majority of the results for "bandom" pertain to the Fueled by Ramen bands specifically.--Ignaz 21:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Alright, and then let's stick to reality and say the reader is coming from a community that uses "bandom" in the nonspecific sense and has no idea it means anything else. "Popular", in that instance, would be a poor choice because someone who has only ever seen it used that way will think that's the popular instance. But, like I already pointed out, that can be avoided by making clear on the page which use the wiki considers "popular". Which you did.--HectorRashbaum 14:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
But people don't usually come to a wiki to look up the stuff they know something about. If someone's looking up bandom on the wiki in a year or two, one hopes that, rather than go to Google, they came straight here when they heard an internet friend use this strange term bandom, and they'll have no idea which is more popular than the other.--zvi 21:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Ooh, I like the proposal! Thanks for putting it together.
Bandom/Terminology Debate doesn't need to be a subpage - if we're going to have two separate "bandom" pages it might make more sense for it not to be. Bandom Terminology Debate could be changed from redirect back to the actual page.--HectorRashbaum 18:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
It occurs to me that (1) Bandslash (disambiguation) should probably also link to the terminology debate, and, two, the Stargates have a similar problem, where something would make sense as a subpage of two separate pages, but it's the same thing. This is how I would adapt what they did.
Bandom Terminology Debate would become the actual page. Bandom/Terminology Debate would redirect to it and Bandslash/Terminology Debate would redirect to it. Does that make sense to you? --zvi 19:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Older Discussion

"Bandslash is now more often used to refer specifically to bandom fic" -- is that accurate? I thought that "bandslash" referred to generic bandfic, encompassing both the bandom groups and unrelated artists. (Ignaz 21:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC))

I suppose I wasn't clear in my wording, because you're right, bandslash is bandfic in general. I meant that bandslash, while it used to be the term for bandom fic before bandom became the commonly used term, it has not been discarded by bandom fen, but still used to reference our fic, as well as other bandfic. It was obviously too late in my timezone to be clear and correct. Editing mistakes is awesome :) (Stepps 12:35, 30 Sept 08)

Request! I only watched this in passing, since I'm not in the fandom, but I think it would be *great* if someone could include the terminology dispute over bandom/bandslash/rockfic into this article. (cf. http://hector-rashbaum.livejournal.com/197847.html?format=light) --Lian 09:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh absolutely, and thank you for linking it! I've got to say that ideas are coming and going and battling themselves in my head as to how best to describe bandom, bandslash, and it in relation to music and media based fandom. It's such a odd little fandom :) --Stepps 10:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Terminology Debate

I'm not at all sure I'm the best person to be writing this up, but I'd rather have it there than not (especially since to look at the page you'd never know non-FBR band fandoms exist). I keep running into one issue, though: is Six Degrees of Wentz the best term for the FBR/MCR/etc. fandom? I don't want to use "bandom" for either side, so as not to favor either of the groups who claim ownership (of sorts) but I have no idea what the best way to get around that is. Thoughts?--HectorRashbaum 17:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the part that began with: Bandom refers to the fandom based on Real People Fiction (also known as Real Person Slash) featuring specific bands; primarily My Chemical Romance, Fall Out Boy, and Panic at the Disco, and everything connected to it is *one* truth of many, depending on which part of fandom someone belongs to, and shouldn't be removed. Instead the competing POV should be added and the discussions about the terminology should show what the conflict is about. This looks like something that should be sorted through the PPOV. --Doro 17:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I definitely don't intend to remove it! I'd like to add the other usage of the term, but not until I can make sure to write it in such a way that respects both sides. I'm referring to the Terminology Debate section specifically - I feel it is important to detail that, although other people's opinions of how important it was might differ.--HectorRashbaum 17:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I saw the changes you made. :) Given the controversial nature of the term, maybe it would be a good idea to start the article with something like "Bandom can mean different things to different people. On the one hand, bandom refers to (blah, blah, blah). On the other hand, there are groups who (blah, blah, blah). What do you think?--Doro 18:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I like that idea! I'm trying to take a light-handed approach, because there's been so much wank (that I've been right in the middle of) I want to avoid looking like there's an agenda being pushed or wankbait being tossed to the wolves. I'd like to see this page more...neutral, sort of - less "THIS is what bandom means, and also there are some fringe weirdos who use it THAT way", but I'll happily settle for us fringe weirdos not being completely ignored. :) --HectorRashbaum 18:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, I changed it. :) --Doro 18:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I guess my mistake in creating the page in the first place was that I AM in the 6DW "bandom" and have never participated in any bandoms in a wider sense. As I try to avoid wank at all costs, I happily ignored the bandom term wank/debate back when it was rehashed in April this year, but when Lian pointed it out to me, I realised that oh, I'm kind of wrong! So, I did not intend for the issue to be ignored and for this article to be solely Bandom in my sense. However, I don't agree that avoiding the term bandom for either fandom group is the right idea, as that is what both groups use and identify with. I prefer Wistfuljane's capitalisation of the word to specify 6DW Bandom, and was considering it as the use for the rest of the article. The changes you've made are really pretty perfect, and I really appreciate you weighing in, as someone who was in the middle while the wank went down. You haven't mentioned that the conclusion was that the two uses are "inclusive" and "exclusive" though, and reading back on the subject that seems to me an important part of understanding the terminology, and how it's being used both for this article and by fandom as a whole (as I do not intend for the article to detail ONLY 6DW Bandom). --Stepps 20:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Like Hector, I do think you have a beautiful page start. But, I have to say that, as a popslash fan, capitalization of bandom or not does not in any way indicate to me that I'm talking about the Ramen Alliance, as opposed to Police/The Who crossovers. I really, really think that some other mechanism of differentiation needs to be established, for the purposes of an article which is referring to bandom in both senses of the word.--zvi 20:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if a sort of mini-glossary of which "bandom" means who would work? Because I agree it's a flawed solution, but I find the other common differentiation - bandom{inclusive)/bandom(exclusive) tends to get clunky.--HectorRashbaum 20:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I actually think you did an excellent job creating the page - the fact that I get way too worked up about the terminology and how bandom-inc. interacts with Bandom-exc. aside :) - and was glad to see there was space for the debate to be covered! Otherwise I doubt I would've jumped in. And I'm really torn on the terminology - and part of the problem is I have absolutely no idea how to refer to bandom-inclusive because I've always just thought of us as "bandom". Differentiating between capitalization sounds like a good solution, with use of (inclusive) and (exclusive) to further differentiate if there's a confusing spot (like if I were to start a sentence talking about bandom-inc., where the capitalization would be problematic). And you're right, I definitely should've added the inclusive/exclusive uses where I talked about the resolution.--HectorRashbaum 20:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the section labeled Bands (which starts out The bands that make up bandom, in the 6DW sense, are all interlinking, having a relationship usually through having toured together, sharing a label (specifically Fueled By Ramen and Decaydance) belongs here in such detail. Couldn't this sort of 'who are the characters and how do they relate to each other' information be better handled by linking to a bandslash primer?--zvi 18:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Does bandslash need to be a separate issue from bandom? Might that be better handled with a redirect? I'm also going to ask on the bandslash talk page.--zvi 18:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure which should be merged where, but I definitely don't think there should be three separate pages for Bandom, Bandslash, and Bandfic. All three terms could easily be covered on one page.--HectorRashbaum 19:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree. While the terms are similar and relate to the same subject of fic about bands and the fandom revolving bands, the uses of the terms vary enough that, from a glossay of terms sense, they are different in their defs. For example, bandfic is not a term that I, as a part of Bandom (the 6DW side) would ever use or have ever seen used (that I remember) in relation to fic. Bandslash however is almost always the term used by authors and readers to name fic we read/write (alternatively I've seen a lot more of the term "bandom fic" being used in recent months). As well as that, bandslash is more the term for the product of a band fandom, not the name for the fandom itself (I'm unsure, would the same be said of badfic? The name suggests so). So, while the three are very closely linked, I think the separate pages make it clear what the differences are, small though they may in some cases be, and because the terms are not consistently interchangeable like other terms (eg. genderswap and genderfuck and sexswap can all be used for the same fandom trope [though I have Thoughts on this too, that's another debate]). --Stepps 20:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Badfic is the wrong parallel to bandfic. The more accurate question is, would, oh, SGAfic and SGA be used interchangeably, and I think it's reasonable to say that while SGAfic cannot stand for all uses of SGA, SGA can stand for all uses of SGAfic. Since bandfic was a silly-looking stub, I redirected it to bandslash, which has a slightly more complete definition on it.
I think what Hector and I are looking at is that for people in bandom in the more generic, rockfic inclusive sense, there's (a) not a consistent difference between bandslash and bandom and (b) the bandom page we are writing is being inclusive of the terminology debates, and pretty much anyone looking at bandslash should get shown the info about the terminology debates. --zvi 20:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The thing is Bandom isn't to bandslash what SGA is to SGA fic. There are many bandslashers, old school or otherwise, who wouldn't identify as Bandom fans so a redirect from Bandslash to Bandom would be in my mind misleading. I think a link in a See Also section or a link to the terminology debate about bandfic vs. bandslash vs. bandom would be sufficient. --wistfuljane 20:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
If someone can articulate the difference between bandom and bandslash, I will be happy to leave the terms alone. No one has done that yet in this discussion.--zvi 20:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
In the simplest terms, bandom (or Bandom) is the name related to the band fandom of community. It is the fans, the comms, the discussions etc just as HP fandom is or SGA fandom is. Bandslash is the name of the kind of fic we (both bandom and Bandom) read/write. While we may sometimes use the term bandslash fandom when referring to the fandom, or bandom fic referring to the fic, bandslash is NOT how I would describe the culture of band fandom. --stepps 20:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The line between bandom and bandslash is blurry, but there is a distinction between them. Bandslash has an older history and to redirect it to Bandom is like to redirect Popslash to Popfandom (if we disregard the fact that Popslash is still a more relevant term than Popfandom). The way Bandom is set up right now wouldn't really allow for the history of bandslash to be record - because there is an implied definition that Bandom is exclusive. *breaks out personal definitions of the two terms as I see how it is being used*:
Bandslash
- Fandom of fans who are fannish about one or more bands.
- Fandom of fans who slash members of one or more bands.
- Slash fiction about or involving members of one or more bands.
Bandom
- Fandom of fans who are fannish about one or more bands.
- Fandom of fans who are primarily fannish about Fall Out Boy, My Chemical Romance, Panic At The Disco, and/or interconnected bands.
- A term used by fans in reference to their experiences within the music fandom, to associate with their band fandom, or to classify their fanworks involving multiple bands, but not limited.
--wistfuljane 21:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I think some of these should be consolidation BS 1 and 2, and BD 1. BS1 should be linked up with Bandfic. , BD 2 and 3 are separate things. So, I think that we probably need some disambiguation pages along with some redirects. I'll come up with a more full proposal of what redirects where tomorrow, but is that any help at all?-- [User:ZviLikesTV|zvi]]
Yes! I think that an awesome idea. BS3 and BD3 would, I think, belong more in the Glossary category than in any others. --wistfuljane 01:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Although I was thinking of making a suggestion to move Bandom (and Band Fic) to a subpage of Bandslash? --wistfuljane 21:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense to me from the POV of bandom-inclusive. And I seriously don't think we can use the capital b to differentiate between bandominclusive and bandom-exclusive, because WikiWords don't allow for pages to start with lowercase letters, and you'll never be able to tell to which one is referring if your sentence starts "Bandom is..." --zvi 14:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Zvi, here. Bandom-inclusive, at least that I've ever seen, wouldn't identify as a supgroup of Bandslash. But...would creating a Bandslash/Bandom page make sense? Use the just-plain-bandom page for bandom-inclusive, use Bandslash/Bandom for bandom-exclusive? Because there are so many terminology differences we're running into already, maybe the best bet would be two different pages, and the main problem with that is you can't have two pages with one name (actually I believe MediaWiki is case sensitive, so technically we could, but I don't think capitalization is clear enough. This way both groups get to be "bandom", but the pages could be more different than two-fandoms-on-one-page, doing justice to the differences in the groups themselves. --HectorRashbaum 17:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
That's the point I was trying to make with my longwindedness up there :) --Stepps 20:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I think part of where I see the need for a merging is the similarity of the two pages (talking about Band Fic and Bandslash) as they are right now (a similarity which falls in line with what I define the terms as, so I'd be no help trying to differentiate). If they really mean/signify different things in Bandom (because they...don't, really, in bandom), then fair enough, but the pages don't reflect that well, if at all.--HectorRashbaum 20:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've created a separate page for the Bandom/Terminology Debate; it didn't occur to me until afterwards it might make more sense to create it as a subpage, so there's also Bandom Terminology Debate which redirects to the subpage. --HectorRashbaum 12:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Dating Discussion

"Date(s): 2005 to present" Is there any special significance to this year that I'm missing? Because it sounds awfully late to me. I did some checking of assorted My Chemical Romance communitites on LJ and the big general one, chemicalromance, was created in September 2002 though it doesn't seem to really take off until the summer of 2004, and the big slash comm, mychemicalslash, was created in September 2004 and was pretty high activity right from the start. - turlough 17:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://fanlore.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bandom_(Decaydance%2B,_My_Chemical_Romance)/2008_Archive&oldid=2569283"