Talk:X (fanartist)

My problem whenever I've seen one of these manips (it's been a while, I haven't seen any of the current work, just the ones I remember, maybe they are different now, but I think I remember correctly that it was this artist) wasn't so much the photorealism, as that it was not photorealistic enough to look real (i.e. no imperfections, a very airbrushed look) nor stylized or art-like enough to be clearly not a photo, so they fall into a sort of Uncanny Valley of to real/not real enough, like magazine covers gone horribly wrong in photoshop. So I've found them extremely creepy. So I totally understood the running away screaming reaction, but for me it wasn't because of too much realism.--RatCreature 00:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You should post your comment on the front page. it is as valid as anyone else's and it offers inight into why the reaction.

ps. the notification on fanlore is not working for me - I am not getting notices on watch pages.--Morgandawn 05:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not add it to the page, because I don't even remember which specific artwork I had that reaction to, or was 100% sure it really was this artist or only a style like this one. I just recognized the artist's name, and that I had thoughts similar but not quite the cited ones, and thought I'd throw that out here. But I guess I could put it on the page itself too, if the vagueness is not a problem.--RatCreature 09:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Disambig

I think this page should be a disambiguation, since there are X 1999, a manga/anime and X Japan, a Japanese band, both of which have an active fandom, at least I remember seeing quite a lot of X fanfiction a few years ago. -- Rodo 07:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Are these known as just X though? I mean would any fans enter just X and click the search go? I mean the search does not work for single letters of course, but you get taken to the page here, so if they are just known as X then I'd be in favor, but if it was more like X-Files or X-Men (and all the associated fan page and list names) where fans are bound to enter the whole, then I don't think it necessary to list all X things under the letter.--RatCreature 09:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Might be just me, but I always tended to think of both as "X" and I know that "X Japan" was originally just called "X" but they changed it because of some American band. I think the X fan that I know in RL tends to call them just "X" as well. -- Rodo 09:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

So what do you think the name for the manga page should be? X (manga), X (1999), X (Japan) ...? --Doro 23:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of X (manga), because the Japanese, English and German wikipedias use that name. Other alternatives seem to be X 1999 (German), X/1999 (English) and just X (エックス in Japanese) -- Rodo 06:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Was any consensus reached about the disambig? I've just realised I've linked to someone as being in the fandom 'X' (as in the manga), which is obviously not going to work ;}! I'm not in the fandom, so I don't know what the proper name is. I've seen it linked with Toyko Babylon, as in "Tokyo Babylon/X", but I gather they are separate? --MegR 19:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, X (manga) has been created? Is there another one? I think the main hurdle now is that nobody put up a template to move this one to X (fan) or X (fanartist) or something, and make room for the disambig here.--RatCreature 19:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

oops. should've checked, sorry. that solves my immediate problem, thank you! --MegR 21:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

reactions

Why was the section describing her style and reactions to it removed anyway? I think that should go back in. It was nothing offensive, and if someone has different takes those should be adde too, not the others removed. The article is now much blander.--RatCreature 09:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

ETA: Also I find it disingenuous to label content edits like this i.e. things that are not style, grammar, formatting or similar small things "minor" because you often don't get notified of those edits when you are another editor. This is is not a good practice, IMO.--RatCreature 09:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. That was no minor edit. Maybe there was too much negative reaction compared to the short length of the article which could be seen as overshadowing everything else but I don't think removing all information about the style is the answer. --Doro 11:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No. If that was the reason (and it's not as if the editor explained anywhere), the solution would maybe to add a positive quote to balance, maybe from a rec or a zine flyer or whereever. Or maybe restructure, so that the reactions were further down. Another possibility would be to move the negative reactions, which apply to many photomanips to the photomanip article somehow, then crosslink, then it would be merely an example there not a prominent point here. But just deleting valid reactions that aren't flames or anything is not cool. We have less than kind things said about plenty of fanworks.--RatCreature 11:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess moving it to the manips article would probably the least controversial solution. Although there already is quite a bit of negativity there and not a lot of positive things about manips. :/ The examples section looks ridiculous too. *sigh* --Doro 13:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is unavoidable that with so few editors articles will be unbalanced in inbetween stages. Is there a maybe a template somewhere we could add, like wikipedia does when it is not NPOV there, but to indicate that the article currently has an "unbalanced PPOV" or whatever you want to call it? I mean, not to add anything until all opinion are represented is not a good option, the articles will grow even less like that. But an unbalance that is highlighted could be incentive for others to come and add more. I mean, I can't help that I'm squicked more often than not by that kind of fanart, so I'm hardly the right person to try to add an opposite POV.--RatCreature 13:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I edited the opinions back in. Clearly no-content blandness is not the answer to get good and expanding articles, but I moved it down into a separate section, so it is not right in the intro sentence, and I also marked the cookie cutter "most fans like it" sentence as needing expansion and quotes to make clear that this is a WIP and needs additions from others. I titled that section "reception" to make it even clearer that it is opinions about the art, not meant as a description. In the intro I merely put the photomanip style back in, because as I understand it these are photomanips.--RatCreature 09:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

A new notice template sounds good. In fact, someone was asking for a template like this in the dreamwidth community, I think. I don't think there is one. So it would say something like ""Unbalanced PPOV: Please review the article and add more points of view as needed!"? Or would it be friendlier to say "Incomplete PPOV"?--æthel 19:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Because there is no "complete" PPOV (clearly there is always room for more), "incomplete" is a bit odd, as is "unbalanced" because that implies that there is an ideal "balanced" state which I'm not sure about either. Maybe a simple "Needs work: Please add more POVs" or something like that could work? I think most variations of this would be an improvement over the current state, where very incomplete WIPs of articles are taken by visitors, who often are not familiar with this wiki and its approach, as if they were meant to represent the subject in a neutral overview right away or something like that, instead of being a patchwork with random opinions and pieces added in random order.--RatCreature 20:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"Maybe a simple "Needs work: Please add more POVs" or something like that could work?" I like this idea. Mrs. Potato Head 20:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know anything about templates, so I tried to make one! Template:PPOV‎. The text is more specific than what you asked for, but we can always change it if it doesn't work for you.--æthel 04:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's inappropriate that you're singling out this one artist and writing negative things about her art just because you don't like it and don't think it's "legitimate." I looked at a number of other pages, including artists who only do photomanips, and there's nothing like this on their pages. Art is subjective -- that's a given -- and I don't think this kind of rude, insulting "critique" adds anything worthwhile. There are a lot of stories, vids, and art I don't particularly care for, but I wouldn't go around trashing them on their Fanlore pages because it's not about ME and MY ego. I thought Wikis were supposed to be more or less balanced and objective. Is this really the point of Fanlore? Random people coming along and "critiquing" stuff they don't like, and not in any especially well thought out or articulate way?

--klia

My guess is that there'll be no shortage of positive things to say about X--as far as I know, she's beloved as an artist! I'll add some now and I'm sure other people will add more; more is what we need. :)--Speranza 19:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with user:Speranza, X is a very talented and much loved artist. Her Harry Potter art was some of the most popular in the fandom. --Meri 19:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm new to all thinks wiki, so I didn't realize coding was needed here. Thanks, Speranza and Meri -- I'm glad others think well of X's art and hope someone takes the time to write something positive (I'm no writer, alas). I only intervened because I was so appalled by the rude comments on her page, and still don't think it's appropriate to go around writing nasty, hurtful "critique" on the fans' pages just because you happen not to like their work. Klia 19:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)