Talk:Soulmates
Soulmate Redirect page or Split that?
Should we reverse the redirect here, and make the page Soulmate? We generally go for the singular. --MegR 08:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Due to the inherently plural nature of soulmates I feel like this is an exception. There can't exist only one soulmate after all :) --Assassin J (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Bee kind added two of their own fics as examples.[1] The Martian is a very small fandom, so that example is probably fine? But someone in MCU fandom might want to recheck the MCU examples. Bee_kind's only two Fanlore edits were to add descriptions of their own fics. And user Graziana also added their own fic as an example (see Talk:Fred & George Weasley), but it's currently the only Harry Potter example, so I hesitate to remove it.--aethel (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Soulmate Marks
I'm going to split a portion of this page off into Soulmate Marks, because the variations of the subtropes within this subtrope are too many and too complex to keep track of on this page. Soulmate marks will have a brief summary on this page and non-physical soulmate connections like reincarnation, sense changes, red strings, telepathy, etc. will remain on this page. Let me know if there are any issues with this. – caes (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- The discussion of marks is such a large part of this page that I'm not sure that changing it to a separate page will be very useful, since the two topics are entangled to such an extent. You'll just get a lot of people hitting this page when they want soulmarks or vice versa, and getting annoyed because they keep having to switch back and forth. --Marcus Rowland (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- I get that concern, but I think that problem would be fixed by leaving most of the History section and adding overview of Soulmate Marks in the intro that makes it clear how the they're related. The new page will largely be about the details and worldbuilding of the subtropes, which are barely covered on this page so far. – caes (talk) 23:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but both pages will need to have a brief overview of the other. --Marcus Rowland (talk) 23:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Looking at the revised page all of the history seems to be about soulmarks, rather than the idea of soulmates as a whole, which is a much earlier theme in literature, films, fanfic etc. Since soulmarks has been split off I think this needs to be changed to a general overview of the idea of soulmates as a whole, with a brief mention of soulmarks since it's a comparatively late development and has its own page. At the moment the page feels really unbalanced. --Marcus Rowland (talk) 05:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- I agree about having a separate page, like there is a specific "History of Slash Fandom" page as well as an overview of the history on the main Slash page. Fans who focus on soulmarks may appreciate knowing the exact date and story that the concepts about them first appeared in fanworks, the way Boldly Writing, shows the evolution of Star Trek fanfiction and some of the most important concepts, but the details deserve their own page, freeing the main page to focus on the main idea and origins. --KTJ (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- Looking at the revised page all of the history seems to be about soulmarks, rather than the idea of soulmates as a whole, which is a much earlier theme in literature, films, fanfic etc. Since soulmarks has been split off I think this needs to be changed to a general overview of the idea of soulmates as a whole, with a brief mention of soulmarks since it's a comparatively late development and has its own page. At the moment the page feels really unbalanced. --Marcus Rowland (talk) 05:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but both pages will need to have a brief overview of the other. --Marcus Rowland (talk) 23:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- I get that concern, but I think that problem would be fixed by leaving most of the History section and adding overview of Soulmate Marks in the intro that makes it clear how the they're related. The new page will largely be about the details and worldbuilding of the subtropes, which are barely covered on this page so far. – caes (talk) 23:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
With the changes made to these pages, the Soulmarks page now contains a clear definition and explanation of the Soulmates AU trope, whereas this page does not. That's fine, but I think we should update the redirects to reflect this. Currently all variations of Soulmate AU, redirect to the Soulmates page, which has very little on the trope itself. This also makes me question the naming of the Soulmate Marks page. Looking at how that page is shaping up, I wonder if Soulmate AU might be more fitting? --Auntags (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Examples
I was trying to add examples but got confused by the organisation of the page: there are both "notable works" sub-sections under each variation of the trope, and a general "Fanworks Examples" section further down. Could this be streamlined, maybe by moving all of the "notable works" to be sub-sections of the "Fanworks Examples" part? Greedy dancer (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- That's a great idea! Yes, I agree that it would be more cohesive if all the fanworks were in one place. Since the type of fanworks have been subdivided, I think we should keep those divisions, but I think they'd be better off all at the bottom under the fanwork examples header. I feel that it would make the page overall neater and smoother to read as well. Patchlamb (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Excellent! Will get to work :D Greedy dancer (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Platonic soulmates???
The page barely talks about platonic soulmates, and I'm not really sure what to add b/c I personally avoid this trope, but I feel like I see it a lot on AO3. Is there more to say about platonic vs. romantic soulmates that should be added to the page?? Does it need its own section? -- Quaelegit (talk) 01:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)