Talk:Stargate Atlantis Season 2/6-7 October 08 Discussion

From Fanlore
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive of a previous discussion on Talk:Stargate Atlantis/Trends/2006. It has been frozen as the discussion is continuing on the main talk page.

6-7 October Discussion & Controversy

Er, this looks like a verbatim repost of one of your own meta posts or something like that? Isn't that against policy? I mean, how can other people edit this? From the [FAQ]: "Can I host my meta essay(s) on the wiki? The short answer is no. But! You are welcome to distill your meta positions into statements [...]" --RatCreature 01:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree; this post should be edited to make it more like a wiki article and not just a reposted livejournal entry. Furthermore (as I think I commented on the original meta post itself) this is nowhere near being an overview of "Stargate Atlantis fanfic." It's overwhelmingly an overview of *John/Rodney* fanfic, and that should be indicated not in a tiny disclaimer in a footnote, but in the actual title of the essay or whatever it turns out to be. -- Liviapenn 01:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

We have a problem here in that I'm not sure this page should exist as such, like Rat points out - but since there is a potential for it to get edited by the collectivity and become in effect a wide-angle view on the topic of "2006 fanfic", I won't get into that now. The thing is, though, it should at least be formatted properly for the wiki. I find it rude for someone to think it okay to copy and paste a HTML formatted text they clearly wrote for another venue into a wiki editing window without taking the time to clean it up. Not to offend, but... yeah.--anatsuno 01:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

okay, I see some formatting has been taken care of. and I'm going to bed (3am here) so I won't touch the rest for now.--anatsuno 01:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
As it is now the entry doesn't encourage or even allow editing at all. I mean, it declares a "methodology" and talks in first person. I think if this page should exist at all (and IMO before there's an extra page for SGA fic in 2006 specifically, there should be a page about the history of SGA fic in general), this should be summarized as one view of SGA fic in 2006 and then linked to maybe, and then others could add.--RatCreature 01:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that this needs some substantial editing to make it suitable for the wiki -- it's all in first person, for one thing, which is only allowed on user pages and direct quotes (and it doesn't even identify who "I" is). It's also really outdated -- there's a (present tense) line that says third season hasn't finished airing in the US yet, when fifth season is half over already. Maybe this could be worked into a general page about fanfic in the fandom, with a link back to this essay on LJ as a snapshot of one fan's view of one particular corner of SGA fanfic at one particular moment in time? --Arduinna 01:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I think this page should be scrapped entirely not just edited, and like you said worked into a general page (or section) about the fanfic trends in SGA fandom as one perspective with a citation link to the original source this was c&p'ed from.--RatCreature 01:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I really need to go to bed but I slapped the Discussion notice on top of the page, because I don't yet know how to flag something for deletion. --anatsuno 02:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Cesperanza swept by my LJ and asked me to add this to the SGA page since this is the sort of historical context we're trying to preserve. I can distill it down, though I'm out of time to do it tonight. I'd ask you not to delete it but give me time to edit it into a more Wiki-friendly form. Icarus 02:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I've gone in and added just the canon synopsis. If anyone wants to add in more analysis they're welcome to it. If and when I have time I'll come back to work on it. -- Icarus 02:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't leave it as is. I've edited the original essay into a Wiki style and hopefully people who know Het fics (which in particular is missing) will add to it.
And, I know we're all tired and working hard at FanLore, but let's keep two Wiki principles in mind: Assume Good Faith and Please Do Not Bite The Customers. FanLore is new and there is a learning curve for us all. Technically everything in FanLore wouldn't be allowed in Wikipedia because it's all original research. -- Icarus 03:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Technically, Fanlore does not want to be like Wikpedia, so let's not use that as a yardstick please, nor as a way to put Fanlore down. I'm sorry if I upset you, that was not the object of my remarks and I apologize. The fact is that you've uploaded something first to work on it second when nothing precluded you do the opposite, and it was a text that as it stood had no real place in Fanlore unless/until it was massively reworked. That there are misunderstandings about what Fanlore is for and the way we should edit it is very clear, and we're working hard indeed on clarifying that. That this article is changing to adapt into something we very much want in Fanlore is also clear, and it's great. But the fact remains that as it was, it looked like a complete page meant to stay the way it was, and that is, as Gardener and mod, what I reacted to. There was nothing personal about that.--anatsuno 11:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the work that went into editing the essay into a less personal viewpoint, but it seems to me that it now reads more as if the points made represent a kind of fandom consensus--which is both not the case and a watering-down of the original. Would it serve the expressed ideas better to have it linked somehow with the first person viewpoint intact, clearly indicating that it represents the experiences of only a segment of the fandom? I'm not sure where to look for this in the wiki guidelines, but if there is a question of the continuity of the original post (say if LiveJournal goes boom and that page is no longer available) can it be uploaded as a text file of some sort? --Sinead 03:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I feel like what it needs is MORE--more het and genfic, character sections on Teyla and Ronon etc--but I do think that the categories she's deploying are interesting. What this needs, in fact, is plurality--more and different points of view--but I think its a really interesting attempt to invite us to categorize certain kinds of stories and theorize fanfiction's relation to canon.--Speranza 04:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's original inception is as a meta. If it were quoted and linked to, that might work, but it's reproduction of one person saying what they saw that year in best fiction of 2006. As part of some kind of 2006 Fanfiction page, this could be compared and contrasted with other people's 2006 reviews of fic and etc, but I honestly don't see how it is an entry all by itself, especially since it's extremely subjective and extremely limited in scope. I'm not entirely convinced it doesn't read, in context of a wiki, "these are the only fic that mattered". As a personal meta, it's a marvelous read. But here, it reads far more as a declaration of fic that were worth reading. YMMV. --Seperis 04:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that's so weird; that's not how I see it at all. I mean, for one thing, the word "best" doesn't appear on the page. If it were a list of "the best" fic, that would be boring (and belong on a recs page); why I think it's an interesting skeleton for a wiki page is because it's trying to talk about trends and categories, i.e "Lorne developed a following' with links to three stories. "More stories began to take the military seriously" with some examples. Those are analytical moves, not subjective ones, eg. "My favorite stories..." or "The best stories". I'm getting a little worried, actually, about what I'm not seeing here, because normally I'm not so out of step with majority opinion. --Speranza 05:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
It read, and still reads, like a meta. And the language reads, at least to me, as a who's who list of SGA popular Sheppard/McKay slash writers. Again, that's fine for a meta, and I read it when it was posted and used it to find more fic. If it works for people as an objective analysis of the trends of fanfic in 2006, cool, but it doesn't read that way to me at all. Possibly if people make more additions, that could change, but I can't see how anyone could--these are the categories as stated by the author for that year. I mean, there's no good way to answer that or add to that when the original categorization and focus were Sheppard/McKay livejournal slash fandom specific. It's not that it's not inclusive--it's that it's exclusive to a particular person, in a particular period of time, writing about a particular subset, and focusing, frankly, on particularly popular and influential authors. As a cited work on some larger article on Sheppard Mckay livejournal fandom, I'd be a lot more comfortable with the exclusivity. And I cannot emphasize enough; the meta itself is fine on its own. But using it to base an entire article on is problematic. The original meta listed as a fanwork, with a link to the original and a short explanation of what they were doing would be a lot more comfortable and less like this is about Signficant, Important Writers and more about 'this person wrote a fascinating meta on what they saw as trends of 2006'. --Seperis 05:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that. I mean for example the canon overview of how it relates in fanfic doesn't mention the kiss between John and Teyla in Conversion, which got really mixed reactions from John/Teyla fans, some going so far as to say it killed the ship(http://vaberella.livejournal.com/13039.html). And I wouldn't even know where I should fit in something like that, or really most other stuff in something that has still the structure of the original meta that wanted to make a point about John/Rodney fic, except by tacking on a new part that would amount to "Meanwhile in Non-McShep Land..." as an afterthought. --RatCreature 07:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes. There's no overall objective fannish structure to work with in this when it's so specific and the categories arbitrarily chosen for a fandom by a single person. I can't see how any other pairing could work its way into it. The original author stated that in their disclaimer that this was limited to what they read, and what they liked, and used that to view the trends. That doesn't leave room for anyone but people who agree with it already to really add to it. --Seperis 07:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
That's why my thought was to have three sections on the page, one for het, one for slash, and one for gen, with this being the base of the slash one, rather than trying to squeeze het and gen into what's already written. I don't know. I do like the idea of mentioning trends that were popular in a certain year and stuff, whether or not the essay is used as a basis. --Kyuuketsukirui 08:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Sections for het or gen wouldn't change what the page is because the page itself is already limited to a specific subset of a specific group of SGA slash writers, those being the ones that the original author read and the trends that the original author noticed in those particular stories. This would work as a fanwork that's linked to with an explanation of what it is. It would work as a citation on a page about Stargate Fanfiction in general, with quotes on what this author saw as trends for this year. But the entirety even as it stands. Its basis is a very specific meta. It's a good meta, and it's a fascinating one to research, but it's not, by it's very nature, able to be PPOV. Adding to it presumes that you already agree with the categories being placed and see these same specific trends. I mean, to put it another way--how do I disagree with it without rewriting it from scratch? With a more general Stargate Fanfiction overview, without categories being already created, multiple pov can be explored by linking up to multiple metas and quoting multiple metas on what was seen that year in fanfiction. I'm not disagreeing it's fascinating or a part of an exploration of SGA fanfiction, but it can only, and should only be a part of a larger whole. I've read it a few times trying to see where I could leave my impressions of SGA 2006, and the best I could do is either agree, in which case I have no reason to add anything, or disagree, and there's no real way to do that. --Seperis 08:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I wasn't reading SGA in 2006 (or rather, I think I read two or three stories without ever having seen the show), so I can only look at it as an outsider. To me it seems editable, even if that means heavy rewriting, deletion, and changing of categories as well as adding new stuff, but I can see how it could be daunting to try and whip it into shape. --Kyuuketsukirui 08:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't look like a recs list to me, but rather the fics linked are used as examples. I think as it was originally posted, it was utterly unsuitable for the wiki. Looking at it now after edits, it seems to be coming together a lot better, though it's still highly focused on slash, and specifically McShep. I would suggest marking it as an overview of slash by using a header, and putting similar headers for gen and het, in hopes that people will come along and edit those sections of the page. (And also add in some stuff about non-McShep slash.) Now that it's been edited so it's not first-person, I don't see why others couldn't come in and edit it some themselves to expand sections or add new trends, etc. --Kyuuketsukirui 05:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
And what a remarkable thing for a writer to put up this kind of original writing for community editing. I'm interested to have it stay just to see what it turns in to. Vera 05:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Having read this, my problem isn't the information so much as how it's presented, it's an essay, which is great, but that still makes it far more meta than informational. The entire things needs restructuring, pull out the various waves pointed to and header them, pull out the specific fic examples and point to the tags on 'ultimate fic archiver' or something more general. What we have here is, in my opinion, still useless as a wiki page because you cannot find information, you have to parse it and pull it out for yourself and there's still too much personal bias (which of course can be weeded out through other people editing.) --Amireal 13:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have read through this thread, and I am itching to go ahead and start updating. I figure what the heck. It's a wiki page. If I screw it up, someone else will come along and fix it for me. And if it's terrible, we can back out the change. --rache 14:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that's a start, but right now it's so slash and McKay/Sheppard centric that even I'm annoyed. Maybe stub headers for other entries? To be honest I'm not particularly sure this is the best presentation for what I agree is something that's definitely worth keeping record of, that being waves in fandom and fanfic. --Amireal 14:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm assuming by this that it's been decided that this page is not a biased meta and will not be deleted. Could I get clarification? --Seperis 14:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I edited it a bit, to the effect of canon on fandom section. Would something like that work? --rache 14:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Having seen what it looks like with the edits, it's still incredibly biased, it's the name checking that bothers me, that and the title of the page proclaims to be general while the content is very specific. It'd rather it be removed and start again. I'm fine with using her original post as a place to find some information, but it's not an unbiased source as it stands. --Amireal 14:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
So far if I understand it right we think that the way people are pulling in with suggestions for changes as well as the changes they make are making it worth keeping the page around - it might be that in the end the page doesn't resemble the original anymore, it might even be that we end up collectively thinking it'd be easier to start from scratch on another page (if anyone - you, Ami? - want to do this, they're welcome, actually - pick another title and we can correct that later down the line). But a complete deletion would only get rid of the conversation that is still happening, as well as of the content that is slowly being reworked. So, work in progress - it's interesting to not suppress any of what's been happening around this page, for now. What do you think? Is it stupid to suggest a new page to merge with later on? Does consensus want to get rid of it and use a clean slate? (clearly the wikimittee needs to consult and make a decision - drat the timezonage that makes this so hard to be fast!) --anatsuno 14:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so the request for deletion has been denied and this page will stand? If so, I think at this point I need to withdraw from the conversation and wiki participation until I feel calmer because this interpretation of fanlore policy seems completely against what I assumed were wiki goals. Going in and adding more namechecks for more famous stories isn't going to change the fundamental problem that this, as it stands, is limited to slash, sheppard/mckay, livejournal fandom, icarus' reading list (insert reading list here). We can add other people's reading lists in, but that doesn't make it an overview of fanfic, it makes it a lot of people mentioning their favorite stories and why they like them. --Seperis 14:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry - I think we're just adding misunderstandings here - I believe I interpret policy the same as you, simply, like Rache I thought we could edit the page until it matched the goals. Please don't be too angry? wah.--anatsuno 15:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah! Okay, I see what you mean. I didn't get that on my read through, and it is a very valid point. From my perspective, what I thought we could do was take the headers as listed, and then try to fill in the other side of the argument, and also document what was happening with stuff that Icarus hadn't read, to try and see whether that conclusion was a more general perception across other people and other pairing fandoms. It's really becoming clear to me, however, that this page is just too daunting to ask people to do that. Too much text, too many things that need to be changed (even simple things, like the references), and too much ground to cover. I thought that just by getting in there and making some changes would help, but it doesn't look like it has. I'm getting the sense that people just feel intimidated about working on it, and there's no real way to open this up to others without starting from scratch. --rache 14:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't even know where I'd start to edit that page - it just reads too much like an opinion piece, which works fine for meta, but not so much here. --Dora 15:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been trying out to edit other stuff in for more povs, but it is really not very suited to this, so I'm still in favor of scrapping this and starting over with a new page for SGA fanfic history.--Ratcreature 15:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I had skipped the whole 'canon summary' section when I read it, so I went back to look at your edits; Now I get what you mean when you say that it's really not suited to our PPV. I'm up for just starting a new page too. --rache 15:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
To preserve the talking points, it might be worth reverting to a stub, not actually deleting the page, just the content. --Amireal 15:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree on the preservation - technically I am not knowledgeable enough to think of the BEST way to preserve the discussion - I think your proposal would work but perhaps there would be another?--anatsuno 15:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Page moved to a new name, feel free to create a new one and work a PPOV-friendly '2006 fanfic' overview instead. whee!--anatsuno 16:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://fanlore.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stargate_Atlantis_Season_2/6-7_October_08_Discussion&oldid=2571563"