Talk:RPF/Archive1
Ack, I can't get the references working right. Someone else do it please?
Msilverstar 07:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Can I ask why this category was created as Real People Fiction? Google gives me 1,180 hits for the search "real people fiction" and 9,940 for "real person fiction", which seems like a clear case where usage favors Real Person Fiction. Could we move this page to Real Person Fiction and then set up a redirect from Real People Fiction? --zvi 03:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Honestly, I think it was just that I talked to Hope and that's what we settled on at the time. I'm not wedded to it any way. I do think it's a more inclusive than Real Person Slash, despite the fact that slash gets rather more hits on websearch engines (8,990 for people, 14,800 for person). I write het too, so would rather not exclude het or f/f or gen. Anyway, fine with me if you want to move it. -- Msilverstar 04:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think the redirect should go to RPF and not Real Person Slash because in this case the abbreviation is more common than the spelled out word and RPF is more inclusive because it covers both terms. As far as I remember, in the beginning real people slash was more common than real person slash and especially because it's always abbreviated, fannish drift could happen. (Google: RPF+fic = 84,200, RPS+fic = 208,000; the numbers for real people fiction/slash and real person fiction/slash are both much smaller.) --Doro 16:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- My understanding is that preferred practice on the glossary is to have abbreviations redirect to the phrases they spell out.--zvi 21:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- That's my understanding too, but I think the PPOV should trump formal arguments like preferred practices because if it's possible to be inclusive we should try to live the PPOV because what good does it do otherwise? RPF and RPS do include both the "real people" and "real person" variation and I for one have always used real people fiction. Just looking at real person fiction as the main term makes me deeply and irrationally angry because I do feel excluded by that. I understand that there are instances where it can't be helped. Sometimes you have to make a decision and femslash/femmeslash would be an example of that. However, if both would regularly use the same abbreviation (for example FSlash), I would argue for the abbreviation as the main article there too. Alas, that's not the case with femslash so that solution isn't a possibility there. But it is here.--Doro 13:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Do you want to call a gardener into this discussion? I'm afraid I don't understand why you feel you're being excluded: do you think I'm wrong in my assertion that the more common form of the spelled out term is Real Person Fiction? Where the community usage heavily favors one term, I think the more popular term should be the one that contains the article (with a redirect from less popular terms.) In any case, I don't know if the glossary policy (abbreviations redirect to the phrase for which they are abbreviations) is supposed to trump PPOV or not. I tend to think it should, as I think keeping the resource usage consistent is important. --ZviLikesTV 14:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- I identify with the term Real People Slash since there was a RealPeopleSlash Webring, since there was the Real People Slash discussion on Rareslash in January 2000 that let to RareSlashX and the Real People Smut page and all the other discussions about Real People Slash at the time. Real Person Slash was used too but not as often, at least not where I saw it, and that made it for me the wrong term. I'm not saying it is the wrong term and I'm not saying all the people who are using it like that today are wrong (although they are probably using RPF and RPS most of the time, just like I do) but it feels wrong to me and I do feel excluded because I don't identify with that term at all. I understand fannish drift, I know these things happen and maybe Real Person Slash was even back then the preferred term. I don't know. I'm just saying there is no need to use exclusionary language with regard to the title of the article when there is a perfectly good abbreviation that is used by anyone anyway when they are talking about RPF and RPS. If this isn’t a convincing argument, well, then it’s not a convincing argument and there is not much I can do about it. I will accept whatever is decided. --Doro 21:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- There is also Tl;dr where the acronym is the entry title, also acronyms where any long form is uncommon like the OT3 and OT4 entries, so content already trumps the formalistic argument that acronyms shouldn't be main entries even if there aren't competing meanings.--RatCreature 23:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- If you guys think RPF is more awesome, go ahead and ask the gardeners to move it.--zvi 02:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- You're right, RPS is more common, but for purposes of lore, I think keeping it both spelled out and inclusive is probably the best way to go. --Msilverstar 01:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
If anyone has clearer memories of the Tori Spelling thing, or saved email, that would be great -- I remember the reaction and the effect it had on other lists, but I didn't read the story myself and am probably hazier than I think on the specifics. --Arduinna 05:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest that the "Ethical and legal issues" section should include at least a mention of the relevant Supreme Court cases: New York Times v Sullivan and Falwell v Hustler. Telesilla 09:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Can you make the adds, or point a fandomlawyer here to do it? --zvi 18:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I can cite the relevant SCOTUS decisions. Not sure how much depth we want to get into here, but I figured they should at least be mentioned with an overview and links to wikipedia. Telesilla 04:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
"actors, singers, pundits, general celebrities, other fans, etc." I really think "musicians" would be a better word to use than "singers". Especially in the light of the recent upswing for bandslash. - turlough 17:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
role playing fic
Anyone ever heard of "RPF" to mean "role play fic", wherein two writers each take on a character and write back and forth from each POV? Apparently it's popular in BtVS, and someone was asking about stories in the TS fandom that had it. I'd never come across it before, but maybe this is worth investigating/clarifying?--Raine Wynd 00:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, this kind of co-writing is usually called a Role-Playing Game, often abbreviated as RPG. When the characters are Real People, we're calling them Celebrity RPGs. Do you think we should cross reference from here?
- Definitely, because if someone hadn't asked about it on TSStoryfinders a few weeks ago because they knew about it from Buffy, I would've never known RPF could mean anything other than Real People Fic. Thanks!--Raine Wynd 04:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)