Dumb question: right now, the term "pan-fandom" redirects to "multifandom," which redirects to this entry. That seems to me an awfully tenuous connection; by "pan-fandom" I mean "everyone regardless of their interest" which not only isn't a listed definition in this entry, it's a completely different concept.
Can (should) ordinary users break chains of redirection? Am I splitting hairs unnecessarily? Is there a way to ask a lengthy question without inserting hard returns in all my verbiage? I don't know! Thoughts? -- User:Vee
- I listed a similar question below. I agree that "pan fandom" should have its own entry separate from this one, because, again, it doesn't refer to a specific project that contains stuff from multiple fandoms, which is what this "multimedia" entry seems to be addressing. --Sabine 05:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Pan-fandom would mean to 'across muliple fandoms'--meaning the people involved in the fandom, which is different from the 'comprised of multiple fannish sources' meaning of 'multifandom'. So because one deals with people (pan-fandom) and one deals with media source material (multifandom), they aren't the same thing. So yes, the redirect should be changed and you can go do that. --rache 14:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Multimedia vs. Multifandom as dominant usage
I'm also not sure that this page should redirect from "multifandom," especially where "multifandom" an "multifannish" refer to people who participate in multiple fandoms, not just people who draw from multiple fandoms for a single project, right? I do not know how to un-redirect a link, but I'd love to create separate entries for "multifandom" and "multifannish" that are separate from "multimedia." Ideas? --Sabine 05:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm. Multimedia does mean that something involves many fandoms from many media sources, but it's never applied to a person. So I could go for breaking out multifannish, but I'm not getting why break out multifandom, since in my understanding they are synonymns. Why should it be separate? What makes it not a synonym of multimedia? --rache 05:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Er...I would have thought multimedia meant...well, multimedia, which is only given a small blurb at the bottom of the page. I have never heard anyone use multimedia to mean multifandom. Maybe that's an old definition from before the word multimedia (as defined on Wikipedia) was common? --Kyuuketsukirui 05:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, back in the zine and convention days, multimedia was the term used by fandom to mean multiple source texts. Mediawest was called 'mediawest' because it included both SciFi movies and Cop shows--multiple media sources, multiple fandoms--not because it had different content forms like print and TV. In fact, I don't even know if books were really included when the first MWC was held. --rache 05:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- I hadn't thought about Mediawest or multi-fannish zines, but I do think that currently the common use of "multimedia" refers to a project that includes multiple kinds of media [writing, video, art, etc] or even a project that is drawn from multiple fandoms, like a multimedia vid (though even here I would say multifandom vid). But more specifically, to address an individual, I think it's more apt to say "multifannish person" rather than "multimedia person" where the first specifically suggests that they work/participate in multiple fandoms and the second indicates that they work in multiple MEDIUMS, like someone who both writes and vids. Is that not how the rest of you see it? It's entirely possible that I'm just blanking on other meanings of the terms... --Sabine 06:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Which is to say, the Remix, for example, is a MULTIFANDOM challenge, but not a MULTIMEDIA one, since it only accepts fic. Right? --Sabine 06:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Nope. It would be a multimedia challenge. --rache 15:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- I would definitely do a double-take at seeing Remix or Yuletide described as multimedia, yeah. On the other hand, something like the Harry Potter holiday exchange, Merry Smutmas, could legitimately be called multimedia because it assigns both art and fic. And something like a Big Bang, where fics get art and vids and sometimes soundtracks made for them would definitely be multimedia, even though Big Bangs are usually single-fandom.
- Because the currant usage of multimedia is not to mean multifannish, and multifannish is the more common term, I would argue that multifannish/multifandom should have pages of their own (or one redirect to the other), with a reference and link to multimedia as an older term (still in use by some). I would also restructure this page so that equal weight is given to both meanings of the word multimedia. --Kyuuketsukirui 07:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. I think at the very least we need the redirect undone (I don't know how to do that), and pages created for Multifandom and Multifannish. If then people want a disambiguation page for Multimedia leading both here and to the Multifandom page (something I also don't know how to do), that works for everyone. Yes? --Sabine 07:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- The Multifandom talk page discusses the why of moving this. I'm going to go ahead and put the redirect back for now. --rache 15:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
sorry, but even after reading the talk pages I don't understand why these two are merged again and again when it's clearly two separate things. I get that once upon a time multifandom zines were called "multimedia" zines. I mean, it makes sense to have a "see also" or a usage note in multimedia redirecting one meaning to "multifandom", but I think for most fans in present day these two terms are not the same or even connected. Nobody calls a multifandom archive "multimedia archive", they are not substitutes and multimedia meaning multifandom is not the more common term. Saying that "multimedia" (in the meaning of multiple fandoms) is sometimes called "multifandom" is just wrong. With multimedia being such a common non-fannish term meaning multiple medias (text, sound, film etc) that has replaced the older usage imo, except in specialty contexts.--Ratcreature 15:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, they are. Multimedia-as-multifandom vids are still called multimedia vids, even though they don't meet the wikipedia definition of multimedia, and people do refer to multifandom archives as multimedia archives, even if that isn't the name that the creator has attached to them. The vocabulary is still alive, and I agree that the issue here is a community clash, between a two groups that have different terms for the exact same thing. We've done tiebreakers using most frequently used term, but I don't know how to do that with this discussion. I would still like to keep them together, as the idea of duplicate entries bugs me. One has to be the main name on the page, but the actual page can contain all the information for both. --rache 16:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Ratcreature and everyone else who said "multimedia" and "multifandom" should be separate pages because the common meaning of "multimedia" today is a totally different one than "multifandom". If the discussion on the talk pages shows anything, then that merging these two pages causes a lot of confusion. --Doro 15:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, the more the discussion goes on, the more I believe that the two definitions need to share space, as having both on the page will help clarify the fannish use of multimedia rather than assuming the wikipedia one. If people aren't familiar with the fannish usage, then they get confused, so it's important to include it with multifandom. --rache 16:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with rache: "multimedia" is definitely still in use as meaning "multifandom", and it's been in use for something like 30 years now in zines, on archives, on vids, and in discussions of all of these. Keeping the terms combined keeps that history alive, which is the whole point of Fanlore. The reason that "multimedia" was chosen to be the page with the written entry is because that term now has two meanings, and there needed to be a way to include both. We can't redirect "multimedia" to "multifandom", because that would exclude things made in different mediums; the only way to do it is to redirect "multifandom" to "multimedia" and list both definitions. --Arduinna 16:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- IMO this mixing doesn't clarify anything. There are two meanings for multimedia in fandom (clearly fandom widely uses the general meaning as well,it's not just the "wikipedia" meaning, which makes sense now that multimedia fanworks and installations are common), and one meaning for multifandom. And I don't think fandom will phase out the term "multifandom" to call that "multimedia" again just because fans used to the historical fanzine terminology still call it that, and putting it into "multimedia" which is used by another group feels like that term is pushed. Personally I think the historical usage of multimedia is in decline, because if you use that for mulitfandom to avoid confusion you'd have to then call monofandom multimedia fanworks "gnargle" or whatever other third term. But that is besides the point, because obviously the historical fannish meaning needs to be covered. I agree with that. I just think the multifandom page should cover what multifandom means, which is unambiguous and covers the areas where it is used "in the wild" (multifandom archives, challenges etc)rather than assigning a term the maintainers of that infrastructure don't use, and the multimedia page should cover what multimedia means in fandom, with the monofannish multimedia fanworks angle one part, and then the other part a history of the term as meaning multiple sources with examples where it's still used like that, with a crossreference link to multifandom. I don't want to obliterate the historical (and apparently still present) use of multimedia, but it is very confusing to not have a multifandom page, even though it is such a common term for which people who use it would never substitute multimedia.--Ratcreature 17:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Multimedia Disambig suggestions
- I think "Multimedia" is a classic example of a word that needs a disambiguation page. My suggestion would be to make "Multimedia" a disambig page, saying something like "For fan activities involving more than one fandom, see Multifandom" and "For fanworks using more than one medium, see Multimedia Works." Then the Multifandom page can include information about Multimedia as an alternate term, and people searching for Multifandom won't get confused about why they've been redirected to an apparently unrelated page.--Penknife 17:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, a disambiguation would work for me as well as a solution to avoid duplicates.--Ratcreature 17:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with this as well. The article and redirect as they stand now are just confusing. (I agree with everything Ratcreature said above.) --Dora 21:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Disambiguation would work for me too. Although in other situations with two different meanings, we added a link to the other page at the beginning of the article without creating a special disambiguation page. I think if we add "For fan activities involving more than one fandom, see Multifandom" to the "Multimedia" page and then explain on the "Multifandom" page that it was once called multimedia, etc. that would probably be the easiest solution. --Doro 21:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm on board with Penknife's plan. I feel like a multimedia disambiguation page is necessary at this point as it now has two different meanings. Multifandom, having for the most part replaced the old school definition of multimedia (concerning many fandoms), should be the main page for multifandom/multifannishness, not a redirect to the "multimedia" page. Then the "multifandom" page can have a section for the history of the term "multimedia (many fandoms)" and multimedia will be split into two pages "multimedia (many fandoms)" and "multimedia (many media)."--Punk 23:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hold on, I think what I meant to say was that "multimedia (many media)" should then redirect to "multifandom" which will have a section on the history and use of "multimedia (many media)." Otherwise there will be two pages with the same function, ie "this term means 'many fandoms'".--Punk 23:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I've been giving this some thought, and I'm still quite opposed to the redirect. First off, today in LJ fandom, etc, I'm convinced the word "multifandom"/"multifannish" is in far more common use than "multimedia" to describe a project or person who is involved in multiple fandoms. I also think that, though "multimedia" may have been used in the past, and still lingers among zine-and-con old school fans, ever since CD-ROMs and so-called new media has developed, "multimedia" has been used to describe things like those, CD-ROMs, etc, that have multiple forms of media (audio, video, images, text, etc) in a single unit. Way up at the top of this discussion page Vee linked to the wiki definition of multimedia, and I would say that... 8 out of 10 fans define "multimedia" as multiple types of media, and "multifandom" as multiple fandoms. I mean, look at this discussion page here as a representative sample.
Anyway, I agree with Ratcreature above; first off, a "multifandom" page is definitely necessary - just statistically, I bet more people will type "multifandom" in the search box, and certainly more people in other entries will link to the word "multifandom" than "multimedia."
A disambiguation page for "multifandom" could work, splitting into "multifandom" and "multimedia," and we can give the multimedia entry the history and usage of that word; definitely a part of fannish history that should be included in this wiki! Also, if it IS an age thing, that should indicate, in my opinion, that "multimedia" should be separated out as a more historical entry, citing the fact that it came from zines, mediawescon, etc, and even suggesting that "lately, the term 'multifandom' has come into more popular use to refer to this kind of fan creation" or something?
Shee, did I ever ramble on. Sorry cats and kittens. I think I had a dream about the word "multifannish" last night. It starred John Slattery from Mad Men. *g* --Sabine 20:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think the disambiguation page needs to be for "multimedia," though, because that's the word with multiple meanings. Then we'd have Multimedia as a disambiguation page directing people either to Multifandom (which should discuss the use of "multimedia" as an older term) or to Multimedia Works, and I think everyone could find what they're looking for.
- My alternate suggestion if people really want separate pages for "multimedia (old usage)" and "multifandom" is to create a subpage of Multifandom for multimedia, so that the disambiguation page could distinguish between Multifandom/Multimedia and Multimedia Works. But I think we have got to separate the two meanings of "multimedia" onto different pages and make it possible for people to find whichever one they're actually looking for.--Penknife 21:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- We could just add a link to Multifandom with the line you suggested above to the Multifandom page without creating a disambiguation page. That would fulfill the same purpose and we could keep Multimedia as the page for stuff involving more than one medium. (There could be multimedia techniques, trends, or maybe even communities. I don't think we should limit it to works.) --Doro 21:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm on board with both those ideas. Disambiguation page for "multimedia" that points to the multifandom meaning as well as the multiple-media meaning. Mostly the redirect makes me uncomfortable because it takes a word with a well-known meaning among fans (multifandom) and forcibly redirects it to a word with less common usage. --Sabine 21:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm still having problems with this, and a lot of it is emotional. I'm thinking a conjoined page like was done for Aristede/Mariead Triste, which technically creates a subpage, and then redirecting both entries might be the way around it, because to me, from the reaction here, the fannish definition of multimedia is the one that people will ask questions about, so it is the one that will be the most searched for as it is not the standard wikipedia definition. So if we move the current page's content to Multifandom/Multimedia, and then have a second Multimedia ...something (can't be fanworks since zines are fanworks but they are all book format text, and multimedia vids are all...vids) that might work. But what are you going to call the second thing? --rache 22:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Emotional investment in terminology that has meaning for someone isn't a trivial thing and I certainly have my own issues with regard to some other terms. However, forcing people who are looking for multifandom to go to a multimedia page (and having the definition of multimedia the way online fandom understands it just as an afterthought at the end), isn't the way to go. I disagree that most people will be searching for the zine fandom meaning of multimedia; most people don't know this meaning exists. They will search for multifandom instead and there they should find among other things the information that this used to be called multimedia in some fan communities. Taking all this into account, it seems disambiguation is what most people would be happy with and that a solution can be found through disambiguation. Therefore I suggest a three-step solution: 1. removing the redirect and giving "Multifandom" its own page, 2. creating a disambiguation page for "Multimedia" which links to both "Multimedia (Zine Fandom)" and "Multimedia (Online Fandom)" and 3. adding a paragraph to the "Multifandom" page that historically in zine fandom it used to be called multimedia and wikilink this to "Multimedia (Zine Fandom)". That way multifandom could have its own page and you could keep one version of multimedia. Would this work for you? --Doro 16:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- I am online, and I still use multimedia for multifandom, so for me "Multimedia (Online Fandom)" is the same as "Multimedia (Zine Fandom)". What I see is a disambiguation between "Multimedia (Fannish)" and "Multimedia (Wikipedia)". --rache 16:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think "wikipedia" is the right clarification. It's not like one is the "proper" fannish meaning and the other merely used by mundanes. I like Penknife's suggestion better.--Ratcreature 16:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Except that Multimedia (Fanworks) is inaccurate, as some fanworks use the fannish definition and a very few use the non-fannish one. In fact, I think this is the base of my dilemma: Multimedia (Fannish definiton) vs. Multimedia (non-Fannish definition) where I think the default should be the fannish one, and the non-fannish one have a line or two only, which is the way the page is currently set up. I do understand that we agree: multimedia (fannish definiton) and multifandom should share space on a page, and what we're arguing over is what the main page name will be. (which in reality could be 'flopsy', as long as redirects were in place.) So do we put 'multifandom' as the main page name and have the first line be: disambig 'if you're looking for multimedia (non-fannish definition) go over here-->', or do we have multimedia as the main page name, and no disambig line? --rache 16:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Using "multimedia" to mean works involving combinations of media (text and something else, generally), is not "non-fannish" usage. This is, currently and in a number of fan communities -- as I think the responses of people on this page show -- what many fans mean by "multimedia." I understand that other fans use "multimedia" to mean what I would call "multifandom." But we are not dealing with non-fannish and fannish meanings of the term "multimedia" -- we are dealing with two different fannish definitions of the term in different communities and at different times. I think it is a very bad idea to define one use of "multimedia" as "non-fannish," and contrary to the spirit of PPoV.--Penknife 17:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- I do understand what you're saying. However, that doesn't change the emotion associated with being told that 30-years of fannish usage is unimportant, and secondary to a definition originating in the culture-at-large. That's a big bite to swallow is all, which is why the naming a second page is what's tough for me. Maybe "Multimedia (multiple fannish sources)" and "Multimedia (art and presentation)"? --rache 17:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've tried to sum up where we are at the bottom of the page, if you want to take a look. I don't think the way "Multimedia" has been used in fandom is unimportant, at all. At the same time, the alternate/newer usage of "Multifandom" and "Multimedia" as terms meaning different things is also important to other fans, as you can see. It is important to preserve our history, absolutely, but terms do change their meaning through fannish drift or across fandoms, and newer usage isn't necessarily wrong. I think the best we can do is here is try to reflect both. It seems like we've hashed out most of the structural issues, here, and we're just down to trying to name the pages in a way that doesn't dismiss either camp's fannish usage as incorrect or unimportant.--Penknife 17:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly. I think that's where we are at as well, and the basics of splitting things out have been agreed to. --rache 18:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think you can dictate what other people experience as fannish and what not. Saying to someone that their use of a term is not fannish seems like a recipe for disaster. I suggested "Multimedia (Zine Fandom)" because that is where your use of the term comes from and "Multimedia (Online Fandom)" because that is where the other meaning of multimedia became dominant. I thought you would be happy with that because it acknowledges the history without denying anyone their own terminology, but clearly that is not the case and I'm sorry I offended you. However, if this is your only objection, I'm sure we can find some way to name the pages without offending anyone. --Doro 16:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, let's try to clarify where we are at this point. I think we've agreed that Multimedia (more than one fandom) and Multifandom need to share a page. I think we've agreed that Multimedia (more than one artistic medium) needs to be its own page. So we need two articles.
The main points of disagreement now seem to be a) what the Multimedia (more than one fandom) and Multifandom article should be titled; b) what the Multimedia (more than one artistic medium) article should be titled; and c) how and where to disambiguate. I am seeing strong objections to distinguishing the two as "Multimedia (Zine Fandom)" and "Multimedia (Online Fandom)," "Multimedia (Fannish)" and "Multimedia (Nonfannish/Wikipedia)," and "Multifandom" and "Multimedia Fanworks."
Here is my current suggestion. I think we should make "Multimedia" a disambiguation page, with no other content, as I think there's too much controversy over the term for using it as the title of either article to be a good solution. We then need names for the other two articles. My suggestion at this point would be for one article to be "Multimedia or Multifandom," and the other to be "Multimedia (Art Form)." "Multifandom" could then redirect to "Multimedia or Multifandom."
Your thoughts?--Penknife 17:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'd rather just list both definitions of multimedia on an easy-to-find "Multimedia" page (preferably under separate, clearly marked headings--oh, boy, we still have to name those headings!) and have a separate "Multifandom" page that includes a history note and a see-also to the multimedia page. What we're dealing with here are two words--"multimedia" and "multifandom"--that need to be defined. The fact that at one point they happened to mean the same thing doesn't mean they have to be combined into one article--the terms themselves have different histories and different origins, so it makes logical sense (at least to me) that we divide them up this way. I hope I'm not adding to the confusion, but the disambiguation suggestion seems to be creating its own set of problems.--Aethel 18:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- That was the original debate, over whether "Multifandom" should or should not redirect to "Multimedia." Rache argued for combining them, on the grounds that they're synonyms and on the basis of the discussion at Talk:Multifandom; other people felt it would be better to split the two meanings of Multimedia onto separate pages on the grounds that it's currently too hard for people who are searching for "Multimedia (multiple media)" to find what they are looking for on the Multimedia page.
- I would personally be okay with going back to having a "Multifandom" page and a "Multimedia" page that contains both definitions (and has "Multifandom," as a see also term), but that's the situation we started with and it didn't seem to be working for multiple people.--Penknife 18:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- In that case, your solution makes sense.--Aethel 20:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- That works for me. I am fine with "Multimedia (Art Form)" and "Multimedia or Multifandom" --rache 18:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- I understand what you're saying, rache; that "multifandom" is a common-sense term that, in fandom, is referred to as "multimedia" (particularly by fans who have been involved in fandom since the zine days, because I think that's where the disconnect comes; older fans still DO use "multimedia" but latter-day fans are much more familiar with "multifandom") and you want to make sure that that definition is made clear -- isolating "multimedia" as a fannish moniker for what "multifandom" actually means.
- But the redirect still causes me problems because of its underprivileging of the term "multifandom" and for its suggestion that we all mean "multimedia" when we say "multifandom" -- because we DON'T all mean that. I mean, I am a fannish person and have used the term "multimedia" in a fannish sense to describe, say, M.'s vanity fair article which uses a magazine format, glossy pictures, and text to tell a story. To suggest that everyone in fandom uses the fannish use of "multimedia" exclusively both detracts from the common and popular use of "multifandom" and also unprivileges people in fandom who use "multimedia" to mean multiple media types.
- For all of these reasons, I think that having a "Multimedia" disambiguation page is necessary, and the redirect really needs to be removed. The disambiguation page can certainly be split into "Multimedia, used in fandom to mean 'multifandom'" and "Multimedia, used in fandom to mean 'multiple types of media'." But I think to assume that either meaning is the DEFINITIVE definition for that term in fandom is actually incorrect for many, many fans and is misleading.
- I hope we can reach a consensus about creating a disambiguation page (which is designed precisely for this type of ambiguous definition!) and removing the redirect. I don't want to go ahead and do it myself without more peoples' input, but at this point that is the only way I can see this page -- and this conversation -- reaching a place that works for everyone. --Sabine 03:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Penknife's current proposal is a page under "Multimedia or Multifandom" and one under "Multimedia (Art Form)". There would be a disambig line or page to redirect as appropriate, and multifandom would go straight to the main page. So I think we're all saying the same thing at this point. Your description of M's vanity fair article would be on the "Multimedia (Art Form)" page, with all the multimedia as multifandom stuff on the other. --rache 05:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Gardeners, look here!
I think we've reached a compromise. I broke out all versions of the "multifandom" redirects and made Multifandom its own page for "many fandoms." That page will include a "multimedia (many fandoms)" section. Next I think this should happen:
1) rename the current "multimedia" page to "Multimedia (Art Form)."
2) create a "multimedia" disambiguation page that says "Did you mean 'Multimedia (Art Form)' or 'Multimedia (Many Fandoms)'?"
3) create a redirect for "Multimedia (Many Fandoms)" to Multifandom.
Things which are mostly above my security clearance. So, how 'bout it?--Punk 07:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, it looks like the consensus that was building was for "multimedia" to be disambiguated into two pages: "Multimedia (Art Form)" and "Multimedia or Multifandom" (with "multifandom" redirecting to the latter, rather than being the standalone term). I realize that "Multimedia or Multifandom" is a bit unwieldy, but I think it's probably the best compromise; people writing about multifandom can still simply link to "multifandom" as they type, no problem, but a page with a combined name makes it crystal clear that neither term is being privileged over the other in any way, which I think is the way to go. Do you still have arguments against that? --Arduinna 08:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, Arduinna -- I think that's the consensus we had reached, and I'm going to do that unless anyone raises objections very soon. We can always change it back if people hate it, but I think it's time to go ahead and make these changes so we can see what it looks like.--Penknife 09:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, lots of discussion since the last time I looked. O_o It seems like having multimedia as a disambig page is definitely the way to go. My preference would be for Punk's #3 above, with multifandom being the page redirected to. I don't see why with that title there couldn't still be plenty of explanation about fans who use the term multimedia instead of multifandom. I really dislike "multimedia or multifandom", though my dislike for it is purely aesthetic, so if people are really insistent, I guess go with that. --Kyuuketsukirui 09:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- If you can find an alternative to "multimedia or multifandom" that people can all live with, feel free to rename the page! Making the multiple fandoms page just "Multifandom" did not seem to be okay with people. That discussion should maybe move over to Talk:Multimedia or Multifandom, though, since this page is getting unwieldy big. --Penknife 09:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Content moved, this page now for disambiguation
Okay, folks. I have moved the "multiple media" content from this page to Multimedia (Art Form) and the "multiple fandoms" content to Multimedia or Multifandom. I added it to the existing content on the previous Multifandom page, so Multimedia or Multifandom may need some editing to make sure it doesn't repeat itself.
Multifandom now redirects to Multimedia or Multifandom. Multimedia is now a disambiguation page. If anyone has objections to the current state of things (after reading the entire discussion on this page, please!), speak up.--Penknife 09:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Works for me. :) Although I would like to point out that combining both multifandom and multimedia (different sources) isn't necessarily helpful for the PPOV because the page won't stay the way it is now. People will edit it to smooth out contradictions, repetitions, causes for confusion, etc. and that will probably be in favor of multifandom. After all the discussion my preferred solution would have been three pages; one page for Multifandom, one for Multimedia (Art Form), and one for Multimedia (Multiple Sources, or whatever). The disambiguation page could have linked to both Multimedia pages, and the first line of the multifandom page could have had a wikilink to the multimedia (sources) page and the other way around. However, as this is not what we could agree on, I'm fine with the way it is. --Doro 10:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- We can still split "Multifandom" and "Multimedia (more than one fandom)" into two pages at some point if people see them as different concepts. Personally, I prefer them kept together, because I think other than the discussion of why there are two different terms, most of what there is to say about the two is the same -- whatever there is to say about "multimedia vids" is the same thing there is to say about "multifandom vids." But I'm open to other opinions.--Penknife 10:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
After much discussion among gardeners, it has been decided to make Multifandom, Multimedia (Multiple Fandoms), and Multimedia (Multiple Media) three separate articles. Multimedia will remain a disambiguation page. This was the best consensus we could come to, and while it may not reflect everyone's first choice, we felt it was the best resolution to the controversy over definitions.
You'll notice some duplication between the Multifandom and Multimedia (Multiple Fandoms) articles, as I've copied a lot of the text of the previous "Multimedia or Multifandom" article into both. They can now be developed independent of each other, although they should continue to link to each other.--Penknife 00:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)