From Fanlore
Jump to: navigation, search

So, in most fandoms, I notice the subpages are like, Stargate Atlantis/John Sheppard. I don't care about John alone all that much -- I care about John/Rodney, the pairing. Am I alone in thinking that makes more sense, at least for slash fandoms? If I'm not alone, then we need a pairing template. Sherrold 17:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I find the naming scheme here weird. There is a large Snape-centric subsection of HP fandom that is not Snarry. Where should that go if the Snape subpage is for Harry/Snape just because the fandom is also called HP? I think this should be renamed into Harry Potter/Snarry or Harry Potter/Severus Snape/Harry Potter or something else, so that the subpage with the charcter name can be for the character's fans.--Ratcreature 18:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a need for both, right? So I agree with you both, there needs to be a character page *and* a pairing page. I thin kthe problem's just with naming the pairing page, since the slash has the subpage function in Fanlore :/ I believe the wikimmittee is already aware of that problem, though. --lian 18:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I've just commented on Fanlore talk:Issues about the slashes-in-titles problem, because I didn't see anything about it there. My preference would be for the titles of articles about pairings to be name/name rather than portmanteaus, since I think that's easier for people to find, but right now I don't think that's going to work correctly.--Penknife 18:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the content here should be moved to the proper Snape/Harry page (whatever that will be; I think to make things consistent pairing names should probably just be name/name rather than fusions). This should be the Severus Snape page. --Kyuuketsukirui 18:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so, it sounds like from the Fanlore talk:Issues page that we're okay with slashes in titles for pairing name pages, so I think the content of this page should be moved to either "Harry Potter/Harry Potter/Severus Snape" or "Harry Potter/Severus Snape/Harry Potter," and this should become the Severus Snape character page, as you say.--Penknife 19:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
*nods* yeah. So is it Snape/Harry or Harry/Snape? I will move it, then. --lian 19:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I prefer Harry/Snape, personally - I mean it seems to me that it's the most common non-portmanteau name of it despite Snarry (or perhaps because Snarry is the way Snape/Harry gets smushed)?--anatsuno 19:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the opinion of the chat crew was H/S, too -- so I've moved it accordingly. --lian 19:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, now it looks like a page about a threesome, and it's not clear from the page title what the page is about. *g* Maybe put that in the first sentence? A standard procedure for ambiguous page names might be nice. --Dora 19:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a way to force the title to display as something other than the URL, but I can't remember what it is or where else it's been used! Also uh, this page is misnamed. Someone with move powers please move to Harry Potter/Harry Potter/Severus Snape. --Kyuuketsukirui 20:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I find the Severitus phrasing in the parenthesis "(There are gen Severitus stories as well.)" misleading. That makes it sound as if there were more slash than gen ones, or at least an equal number, whereas there are only 17 incest ones listed on [painless-j's thematic list ] for them, but th--Alchemia (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)ere are probably hundreds of gen Severitus stories by now. I get that this is the slash page so the gen ones aren't really of concern here, but this gives the wrong impression, imo.--Ratcreature 22:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Influential Snarry fans

The section "Influential Snarry fans" seems a bit pointless to me because it doesn't say why they are influential. What have they done? That should be part of the long "brief history of the Snarry fandom and fiction" (like the information about Luthien, painless_j and Snapetoy) or not be included at all because otherwise it reads like a random list of people that someone considers BNFs. --Doro 21:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree.--Aethel 21:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Not so much BNFs as people who, yes, in my opinion, have contributed significant fic, meta, or to the general discussion that's gone on over the years. -- Meri
But a list just declaring them "influential" doesn't give any info, that is just random name dropping. Why not just have the names as part of the history or the fanworks section, together with what they have done? I mean, half the names are already mentioned in the text anyway in the context that they created infrastructure or whatever else they have done. So it would be better IMO to add info of why these other people are important to Snape/Harry fandom and put it in the text somewhere.--Ratcreature 22:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay. I see what you mean. I'll see what I can do about working the people in. Do you want me to delete the section?--Meri 00:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

External Resources seems more to me like meta about the oairing. or is this usage following a template i didnt notice? --Alchemia (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I would make a separate section for Further Reading/Meta if you've got more meta links. How we divide up sections on the page has changed over time, but we're not very standardized. It also depends on how many examples we've got of each type of thing--for example, if I only knew of one archive, I'd just throw it under External Links/Fannish Resources/whatever.--aethel (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Links

It is Fanlore custom/policy to preserve non-working links with a note. Could someone add the ones on this page back in, while retaining the very welcome new links Siahara just added? And then remove this gardener's tag? --MPH (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I added them back. In a few cases I found some wayback links that sadly did not capture the actual art.--aethel (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)