Template talk:MetaEssay

what other fields do we want?

Maybe topic? --Doro 16:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, is this for all media (for example picspams, gif meta, video, etc.) or just essays? Because if it's for essays, what's supposed to go under "Medium"? --Doro 16:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)http://fanlore.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:MetaEssay&action=edit

Topic added. print vs. online is what I was thinking.--æþel 18:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm looking at the meta category now, and there are some surveys listed there. Do we want a separate survey category or template, or should this template have a field for essay vs. survey vs. ...?--æþel 18:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think online vs. offline is all that relevant in this case because an essay, a podcast, a video, gifs, etc. can all be online and still be different media and the same is true for offline where print could be an essay or a survey or maybe even art. --Doro 19:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

First off, I like the idea of this template a lot. It's odd that we have a template for external essays, but not for internal ones.

I assume that the bulk of pages using it will be text essays? (Or is that textist of me? I know recently there have been some podcasts of meta, largely but not entirely about podfic, and assume vidders also produce metavids, though I can't recall any.) If that's the case, the biggest differentiator is whether the essay/article was printed in a zine/newsletter/apa or written for online publication -- though that will tend largely to track with date. If meta in other media (vid, podcast, &c) is going to be given this template (which I think it should), then the field could easily be adapted to encompass that.

On the survey point, I think it's possible to distinguish survey questionnaires from articles written about the results. The latter seem to me to fall squarely within meta/essay, and separating it out seems artificial. The former doesn't seem to have enough coverage to be worth having a specific template?

I'd be against including picspam, unless that was an ironic label for an essay illustrated by pics. A pure collection of images seems to me to belong elsewhere, even it's making a point beyond teh_pretty. Again this might the textist in me talking... Espresso Addict 00:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

On Tumblr, a lot of meta is in image/gif form with text (sometimes the actual canon text as spoken by the characters) added as subtitles to the image/gif. The meta itself is often presented in form of a gif set and the argument is made by combining specific scenes. ETA: The images aren't "just" illustration in these types of meta, they are an essential part of the argument and they don't necessarily need additional commentary. --Doro 10:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I don't frequent Tumblr, but what you describe would certainly count as meta. As would vids that did the same with moving images. What I'm keen to avoid including would be a set of images of a character/actor, usually just intended to illustrate how hot they are, which is what gets called picspam in my neck of the woods. Espresso Addict 11:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Where does this leave us? Is it okay to keep the medium field and put in things like "online essay" or "tumblr gif set" or "print essay" or whatever is relevant?--æþel 17:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me! Espresso Addict 05:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

formatting problem

I prefer the field name "title" to "fanworktitle", but the way it was added is messing up the way the template displays on pages.[1] For example: A Careful Analysis: The Roddenberry Footnote. Is there a better way to offer two field name options? Or do we need to choose one and update all the pages that use the other?--aethel (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Move

I propose moving this to the Fanworks template area. --MPH 14:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)