Template talk:AnnotatedFanwork
Suggestions/Questions
I love this template! Thank you so much for sharing it. This might be unnecessary, if we put the template beneath a specific character/ship name or include it in the annotation, but I just thought I'd ask if anyone else thought it might be helpful to add a section where one can put a relationship or character name, and it automatically creates the internal link coding for it? Surrounds whatever is entered with:
[[INPUT HERE]]
And if that's possible, is it also possible to automatically wrap fandom titles, authors, and mediums as well? Since that is done for the URLs. - Jacksbrak (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Discussion about the Use of This Template
I really dislike the use of this template, in theory it should make the listing of fanworks more comprehensive, but in practice if you use it on an article with more than a few key fanworks examples it makes the article look very cluttered and adds a lot of extra length that isn't really necessary. Plus you can't format the list of fanworks in columns to condense the page, see Clint Barton/Natasha Romanova for example. There was some discussion about this on the Talk:Magic AU page, but I think its use needs a broader discussion overall. I'm not sure if this is the right place for this discussion, but I wasn't sure where else to put it. -- Kingstoken (talk) 13:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Agree. I'm not a fan of this either and on some pages (Alpha/Beta/Omega and Genderswap) I struggle to read the examples. I know there was a related discussion on Talk:Genderswap and Hoopla proposed two alternative ways to list fanworks. Not sure if either of them are suitable for formatting in columns.
- I am concerned that this is our only template for listing fanworks, and new users might see it as our preferred method as a result. This template is not used on a lot of pages, but I think it's important to have a wider discussion before it becomes more common. --Auntags (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if I like the table either, but I do think it is at least a cleaner look than the AnnotatedFanwork Template. What I don't understand is why we can't just list fanworks in bullet point fashion, like we do on most articles, it looks pretty neat and readable to me. Anyways, I agree that some sort of consensus would be nice so we can better advise new editors -- Kingstoken (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that this template is being overused and often looks cluttered, and it feels particularly unnecessary when there's not much in the "Annotated" section. As the intro on this page says, the template was originally intended for fics and meta, so it isn't optimal for something like a list of links to fanart. Some ways I've found the template useful were for making long excerpts from different posts more readable and listing works by a single author. However, in both of these cases I was selective with the info that was relevant to include in the template so that the blocks weren't overwhelming. --caes (talk) 03:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- It looks much better in the quotes example. Is it possible to adjust the formatting so that the metadata bits are all in one box? I think it'd be a lot less cluttered if it said "Title by Author - Fandom - Date - Genre" (with either dashes or pipes separating the various elements) in one box, rather than the cluster of little boxes that are hard to look at. If it can't be reformatted, then several of the current uses should probably either be regular text or tables. --Elf (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that this template is being overused and often looks cluttered, and it feels particularly unnecessary when there's not much in the "Annotated" section. As the intro on this page says, the template was originally intended for fics and meta, so it isn't optimal for something like a list of links to fanart. Some ways I've found the template useful were for making long excerpts from different posts more readable and listing works by a single author. However, in both of these cases I was selective with the info that was relevant to include in the template so that the blocks weren't overwhelming. --caes (talk) 03:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if I like the table either, but I do think it is at least a cleaner look than the AnnotatedFanwork Template. What I don't understand is why we can't just list fanworks in bullet point fashion, like we do on most articles, it looks pretty neat and readable to me. Anyways, I agree that some sort of consensus would be nice so we can better advise new editors -- Kingstoken (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, if you don't like for this template to be used, and prefer bullet points, I hear you. I personally like the details this template offers (the info in the grey) - so what is your preferred format for bulleted lists?
link ^archive link, sized: length here, '''by [[author]]''' posted on DATE for ''fandom'' and '''pairing/character'''
-Jacksbrak (talk) 05:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)- There isn't really a straight answer to that, as the preferred format depends a lot on the content on the page. So on pairing/character pages, the example fanworks often look like: Title by Author, Summary (Year). But a lot of pages don't include Year. There are pages where the summary is taken directly from the fic but in other cases editors add a sentence highlighting why the fic is notable. A lot of time if there's a prevalent trope within the fandom, we have one example of that in the example fanworks section, and include a note to make it obvious that this fic is an example of that trope.
- But I think you're specifically asking about formatting on trope pages.It's often the same format but the section is sometimes structured differently. We often divide our example fanworks by fandom (See Fake/Pretend Relationship). In some cases its more appropriate to have a list of all example fanworks, and organize them chronologically so readers can see how the trope progressed overtime. Also if the list gets too long, we can edit it later to add new sections. Some pages separate out notable fandoms and then have an other section, for other fandoms the trope has appeared in (See Identity Porn).
- We do want the example fanworks to be representative of how the trope is used across many different fandoms. So Identity Porn has mostly Marvel and DCU examples, with a few examples from procedural TV shows that use fake identities for undercover work. Those examples are pretty representative of where you will find that trope in use.
- Sorry for the long answer, but it really is a judgement call. And I usually just follow the formatting already used on the page unless there's a reason for changing it. --Auntags (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)