Talk:Sharing Deleted Fanworks

Fan Art was rarely copied and shared due to the technological limitations of reproduction. Are you sure that was as rare as you think it was? All the vids I've ever seen (or actually have somewhere on tape) before it became easy to download them are copies of copies of some vid tape or another. Also, should this be renamed Sharing Fanworks? The "deleted" seems kind of strange in an article about copying zines and vids. --Doro 18:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This article assumes that people know when something has been deleted (an active act of the creator) as opposed to simply disappeared (archive/website no longer maintained by the archivist) because the creator didn't actively try to keep it online. Usually people just know that something is gone. The reasons for that are privileged information that not everyone has access to. --Doro 10:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This is awesome, it would never have even occured to me to make a page about this! I too have seen a fair few copied zines & vids. However this was post-internet, (since I was barely alive pre-internet let alone reading fanfic), which obviously made it easier for people to connect and request/offer copies and I think also lead to a change in attitude to sharing fanworks in general. It seems practically impossible to say how rare it actually was pre-internet unless there were people talking about it at the time in, I dunno, letterzines? Were there? But I've never seen fanart copied separate from the zine (except digitally, obvs) which is what I assumed that sentence to mean. I do agree that Sharing Fanworks might be a better name.

I feel there ought to be a reference to fansites just going down and taking all hands with them (e.g. GeoCities), but I'm not sure where to put it. It sort of comes under gafiating, since presumably if they weren't gafiated they'd have saved their fic, but? MegR 11:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Doro, this page seems to largely be about sharing fanworks that have been purposely deleted, so renaming it to "Sharing Fanworks" wouldn't make sense?

MegR, the reference to fansites just going down is something that is touched on in the Lost Fanworks section of the Searching for Fanworks on the Internet page; but maybe it could be expanded there (or maybe another obvious link to that page from this one would be a good idea)? --Sk 11:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: the title. Yes this is a page about Sharing Deleted Fanwork that someone requested on the Fanlore community. I was able to find links to deletion discussions from early in 2011 on metafandaom to help frame the debate. Including general discussion about sharing fanwork is to help give the reader context about how people feel about sharing deleted fanwork. Re: Sharing deleted Fan Art in the pre-tech days - this refers to artwork, not vids (vids are addressed in the preceding sentence). To the extent the artwork was published in zines that had gone out of print, artwork was photocopied much like the the stories were. Coying and sharing original artwork was hardly done when the artwork pre-dated scanners. Photographs of artwork could be turned into prints and then sold/shared, but this was prohibitively expensive and very rarely done in the 70s-early 90s. Once we started emailing gifs to one another, artwork could be easily shared even after it went out of print or went offline.--MeeDee 16:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

link more pages to this one?

Sad page is sad? Actually, the page itself is good, but very few fl pages link to it. Woe. :( --Sk 08:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I added a link on Fic Finding. Are there any fandoms where it's a particular issue? (I can't think of any off the top of my head.) It would be possible to link to from AO3 if there was a section (or a separate page) on Orphaning, which there currently isn't. --MegR 10:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

There are fics where this is a particular issue. There was a really popular fic in my fandom that got taken down without notice a while back. People are constantly searching for it, and sharing dl links. --Anenko 16:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm adding links to this page at profile pages for some of the specific storyfinder comms. But adding links from relevant fanwork or fan profile pages (or fandom pages) would be excellent too, if you know of or run across examples! :) --Sk 22:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Fanlore's Policies?

This is a great article, but it got me thinking -- does Fanlore have any policies about linking to fanworks that have gone missing/been deleted by their creators? I know we link to archived versions of websites (e.g. Wayback Machine copies), but do we/should we link to archived deleted fic, too? Even if it's against an author's wishes? Should we upload deleted fanart (assuming it otherwise meets Fanlore's Image Policy/fair use)? I'm curious to know people's thoughts. --sparc 03:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Per the Maya (fan writer) page, it looks like the policy is to not link if the creator explicitly requests not to. ? --Sk 03:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The case of Maya was before my time on the wiki committee, but my understanding is it had more to do with the connection between her professional identity and her fan identity than anything else. The main issue with linking to deleted fic is Fanlore:Identity Protection -- if the author deleted the work because it endangered them/outed them somehow, then we need to take that seriously. Otherwise, my only concern is drawing attention to illicit uploaders who might prefer to stay under the radar, but that's really a judgment call and not a policy issue.--æþel 03:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The policies in play seem to be the similar for every page: Fair Use, PPOV, and Identity Protection. But while there is not a policy against linking to archived copies of deleted fan fic, in the (remarkably few) times a writer has made an explicit request, that seems how it has been handled. Don't know how it would be applied to deleted fanart - if the art still exists on a physical object (a fanzine) or is part of an ongoing issue or key to existing commentary, then they'd most likely try to work out something with the artist (smaller size etc depending on the type of objections). Deleting an article, OTOH, or removing discussion about something that existed is less common. My suggestion is that if you are approached by creators who do not want Fanlore linking to archived versions of their fanfic, to escalate their request up to the Wiki Committee. The Wayback Machine uses a similar approach - they archive until the creator makes a request to have the archived page removed from the Internet Archive (something BTW, all creators can do on their own, independent of Fanlore. It effectively fixes any linking issues across the entire Internet). But until then, I'd follow the general guidelines that apply to all articles.--MeeDee 03:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

PPOV?

This article looks like it could use an infusion of standards and ideas from communities outside media fandom. I put in a little from the English-speaking Anime & Manga end of things, but there are dozens of communities that may have very different standards, and the style of the article feels kind of assumptive that it's covering all the bases? I'm not sure, I may just be reading too late at night. -the old briar pipe (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

If you ask me, almost every page on Fanlore could benefit from having a wider range of input from non-media fandom. So add away!

^_^ I'm wondering if there's an appropriate notice box that could be placed on it to draw attention? I know that I sometimes feel more comfortable diving in to edit a page that looks coherent and well put-together if I know that other editors are actively looking for more perspectives. Is there a template that serves that purpose? -the old briar pipe (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Would Template:PPOV do? --Anenko (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that template is intended for this kind of situation, yes. But I don't want to imply that there's anything wrong with the material that's there - there just needs to be more breadth, I think? -the old briar pipe (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe? Template:ExpandArticle? --Mrs. Potato Head (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'd forgotten about that one! Yes, I think that would work, thank you. Does anyone mind if I add it, and anyone have ideas for how to word the "because"? -the old briar pipe (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Please excuse me if this sounds snarky; I'm not trying to be. What's the use of the PPOV template if we don't actually want to use it for the kind of situation it's intended for? I do get a "there's something wrong with this page" vibe off of the template. I've felt pretty horrible the few times it's been used on the pages I created and/or worked heavily on. --Anenko (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Anenko, is it the wording that concerns you? I've had some concerns myself about wording in some of the notice templates. The other one that springs to mind is Template:NeedsMoreFandom. It's probably not easy to translate Wikipedia-style notices into less-judgmental phrasing; do you think we could point out the specific language that's making us uncomfortable? Or should this discussion be taken to the template pages themselves? -the old briar pipe (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm probably not the best person to ask about this issue. I'm still resentful about how several of my contributions were dismissed. I like how you went about the issue; you asked the original editor for her thoughts before slapping on a notice. It's not so much the wording of the templates themselves as it is the feeling that people forget the editors who worked on the pages are right there. Fanlore is a small community; if you're complaining about how badly written a page is, chances are good that the editor who wrote that page is reading your comments. Heh. Sorry, like I said, I've been on the receiving end of that treatment a couple of times--it's one of the reasons I regularly burn out on Fanlore. (There is no need to defend Fanlore policies to me. In fact, please don't. I am talking about an emotional response on my part. This is my issue, not Fanlore's.) --Anenko (talk) 10:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• hugs* I'm sorry that happened to you! (And I'm sorry for the late response - wrangling re-opened, and I got swallowed up.) I agree that some of the templates are very strongly worded, which is why I don't use them except maybe on pages I made myself that no one else has contributed to yet. There may be room in the template structure for a couple of milder ones that allow editors to specify their concerns or requests, which in my experience cuts down on the knee-jerk feeling I have of 'hey, what's wrong with what I wrote?' I've had a couple of twitchy responses to templates in the past and have ended up apologizing because the editor was totally nice and didn't mean it the way the template sounded. So, well, I don't think this issue is only yours? If there's a way to make more people comfortable while still supporting collaborative questioning and improvement, I'm all for it. (Also, we can has a pony? ^_^) -the old briar pipe (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It tends to be the comment field/summary that raises my hackles (I've had "this page is a mess" added to a page I was the only contributor to, after I'd asked for help with it! That stung.) "Added PPOV template" is no problem. "This page is horribly biased! Added PPOV template" comes across as needlessly insulting. I try to remember that everyone has different personalities and opinions on what makes an insulting statement, but yeah, Fanlore editing can be an emotional minefield. *g* I think you're onto something with your suggestion; it feels more like "this is how we can make this page better." --Anenko (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be neat to have one that help direct people to the fact that Non-Western media Content it needed. It would be specific, highlight where to go if you want to help add more X content and prevent the lack of non-western media content from continuing to be swallowed in the sea of Fanlore. "Template:ExpandArticleNonWesternMedia". --MeeDee (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I like this idea! Could we make it a little more neutral and leave a "because" like the ExpandArticle template has? Because it varies from page to page as to which fandom is generally overrepresented. For example, I'd love to put a template like this on the fansub page, since it's pretty much all anime. Maybe "Template:ExpandArticleFandoms" or something like that? -the old briar pipe (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

To answer Anenko above: The "Expand" Template allows you to specify what content needs to be added. That is different from saying: "PPOV: Some opinions or a particular focus may take up more space than seems justified by the length of the article or by the issue at hand. Please change and expand the focus by adding to the article and check out our Plural Point of View policy. When in doubt, discuss your concerns on the talk page of the article." Expand is saying: this page needs more facts (and here are the kinds of facts that are needed) vs. this is a one sided set of opinions that needs to be more balanced. But I think editors should use the template that makes sense to them - and personally given how little non-western media content there is on Fanlore, a template to help highlight and pinpoint that specific topic would be useful.--MeeDee (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

And to digress - the PPOV template wording is strong but I find that OK. Mainly because I use it sparingly. Actually, I've gladly applied the PPOV template to pages I started that touched on controversial topics. It gives me a sense of waving to other editors and yelling - "Over here. This page need help. And please don't bite!" But having it applied to something you wrote that you thought was balanced or complete can be offputting...especially when one solution would be to add the POV that you - as the labeler - think is missing.....I think we should link to this discussion from the PPOV template Talk page.--MeeDee (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we should link this conversation from the PPOV template Talk page. As I told Anenko above, I'm in favor of more options when it comes to templates, especially options that allow editors a "because" field or some other way to express their concerns in their own words. That's something I'd rather slap on my own pages as well, rather than a generic template that doesn't point out the specific issues I'd love for others to address, if they can. -the old briar pipe (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

sharing communities

I found a subreddit specifically devoted to sharing deleted fics rather than fic finding: DeletedFanfiction.--aethel (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)