Jump to content

Talk:Shipping discourse

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleShipping discourse has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 16, 2024Proposed deletionSent to articles for deletion
April 16, 2024Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
May 5, 2024Good article nomineeListed
October 10, 2024Peer reviewReviewed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 16, 2024.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that a "pedophilic" relationship between two fictional adults led to an era of ship wars?
Current status: Good article

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hilst talk 14:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Moved to mainspace by Generalissima (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 35 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. ZKang123 (talk) 07:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Shipping discourse/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 04:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Vortex3427 (talk · contribs) 11:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vortex3427: Pinging to check in! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for a second opinion here, due to reviewer absence and some revisions made since the review has been open. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Got here from WP:DISCORD. @Generalissima:

  • Background
  • The term shipping [...] emerged [...] to refer to fans That's "shippers". Needs to be rephrased "to refer to the fan practice" etc.
    • Ah yeah, good point. - G
  • Link fandom.
    • Done. -G
  • For someone who's never heard of shipping before, it'd be good to specify that after the X-Files fandom it was used in a more general sense because the text doesn't point out the leap yet.
    • Done. -G
  • period fanfiction websites alternatively alligned with either What does period mean? Contemporary? Does alternatively need to be there, and maybe "aligned with both" instead.
    • Contemporary, but that's better here. And tweaked phrasing. -G
  • Many fans of particular pieces of media Shippers.
    • Fair enough. - G
  • Link canon to Canon (fiction).
    • Oh, didn't realize that existed. -G
  • Due to the intensity of emotional attachment to these pairings, Because of this,
    • Oh yeah, I kinda already say that in the previous sentence. Ty. -G
  • Can you elaborate on what fandom spaces means, exactly? I know the source doesn't really say, but it does describe Tumblr as an important fandom space
    • I feel like that doesn't need extra context to be understood to someone without context: I mention both fansites and large scale social media networks used by fans. Nevertheless, I tweaked the phrasing a little bit to make this more clear. - G
  • The source doesn't say The "destruction of LiveJournal" but The destruction of LiveJournal communities, so it changes the meaning a little bit. Maybe just go with "This led to"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WritingAboutCreepypastas (talk • contribs) 14:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to quote it more directly. - G

Sorry to butt in, but there is a {{citation needed}} and {{how}} tag on the page. These should be fixed before any possible GA promotion. In addition, the text was changed significantly (by another user) since the review started, so this may have to be taken into account too. Epicgenius (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ZKang123 review

[edit]

Rather interesting article to be on Wikipedia. Given I write fanfiction myself, let me look over.

Very well-written for such a topic on fandom culture, with adequate sourcing to academic commentary. Just a couple of proposed edits:

  • "carefully distributed only within small cliques interested in the work." – "...interested in such works"
    • Done. - G
  • "allowed the free spread of work" – "allowed free distribution of works"
    • Done. -G
  • "the large websites still forced works" – "these websites..."
    • Done. - G
  • Might also add a news report of the Tumblr nsfw ban.
    • I would like to, but none of the sources actually made an explicit connection to this, so I figure it could fall into synthy territory. - G
  • "Antis have been described as "hybrids that exhibit traits of fans, anti-fans and anti-shippers."" – by who? The author of the source cited?
    • Attributed quote in-text. - G
  • "Inverted from anti-shipper" – would say "On the other hand"
    • This is an etymological description; I made this more clear. -G
  • Might remove "form a broad opposition to antis"
  • "a 2013 survey revealed that only 38% of AO3 users were heterosexual, with more nonbinary users than men." – is it also possible to directly cite this 2013 survey in the article?
    • The findings of the survey were posted on Tumblr, so I feel it's best to just stick to the academic source analyzing it. - G
  • "has been described as a means to attack pro-shippers" – described by who?
    • Attributed. - G
  • I suggest having adequate in-text attribution when directly quoting academic material.
    • Attributed or paraphrased direct quotes. -G

I think that's all for my side. Earwig shows no copyvio issues beyond lifted quotes. Putting GAN on hold.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ZKang123: I don't think you're really supposed to put a review that someone else has been working on on hold? Elli (talk | contribs) 04:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elli: oh shoot, because on the WP Discord Generalissima was asking for a second opinion and hence I offered my views. However, if the other reviewer has other comments, then eh... Shoot...--ZKang123 (talk) 04:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZKang123: Ah, no worries in that case. If it was requested it's fine. Sorry for butting in. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZKang123 @Elli not on hold. 2nd opinion and i put it there. alls good Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Alright everything is adequately addressed. Passed. --ZKang123 (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article title: is it too generic, or is there a need for etymology?

[edit]

This is an interesting article, but the direction it takes surprised me. With a title like "Shipping discourse" I expected an overview of discourse about "shipping" generally (i. e. of how people talk about shipping). However, this seems to be covering the history and academic interpretation of a very specific range of shipping discourse focused around certain kinds of content within certain communities (possibly even at a certain moment in time, i. e. 2010s onward). The redirect of "ship wars" to here is especially surprising, since if I wanted to read about "ship wars" I'd expect to read about the back and forth that happens as people propose and oppose certain fictional romantic pairings (Zutara versus Kataang for instance, to use Avatar: The Last Airbender as an example), rather than about this much more abstract level of discourse that's about the inclusion or exclusion of certain genres/ranges/kinds of content. This article seems to be covering example of discourses people have about shipping, but what I've read about this elsewhere doesn't seem to mean to give the impression that this is the entirety of shipping discourse, or discourse about shipping, or in other words general talking about shipping (i. e. Zutara versus Kataang could be another example of "shipping discourse" even though it's not part of this more abstract conversation).

I think the title of this article would be better if it was more specific (maybe "Pro-shipping and anti-shipping" or ", and I think "ship wars" should redirect to shipping (fandom). Alternatively, if this particular title and term is in fact specifically about this (is this in fact an emic term?), some sort of summarization of the etymology of it would be helpfu. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for raising this point, it was something I really racked my head against titling this thing. Talking to a lot of people in fandom circles, this was the term that seemed to be the most common to refer to this particular debate. Pro-ship vs anti-ship debate would be an unambiguous title, but I think that "Shipping discourse" works in the sense that there isn't other notable discourses about shipping characters (AFAIK, of course). I'll try to add in some more stuff about the etymology; the specific use of the term discourse in Tumblr circles is very idiosyncratic and inscrutable. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this is an emic and specific term and not an etic and generic term, an etymology section would help clear this up. I also notice that the term "shipping discourse" itself only appears once in the body paragraph, furthering the impression that it's a generic term invented for the Wikipedia article title rather than an emic term from the discourse itself.
"Shipping discourse" works in the sense that there isn't other notable discourses about shipping characters (AFAIK, of course)—I suppose I would say that shipping itself is the most notable of all possible discourses about shipping characters, i. e. the discourse (i. e. talking/conversation) that fans have about the ships themselves (Zuatara or Kataang? Team Gale or Team Peeta? etc.), as opposed to this seemingly Tumblr/AO3-specific abstract-level conversation. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is truly one of the peak examples of Wikipedia discussion meeting Internet discussion and I love it. AryKun (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Hydrangeans that the title right now is too vague. "Shipping discourse" can be mostly known as the pro-ship VS anti-ship debate, but there are definitely other types of shipping discourse. I was able to find two sources about shipping discourses seemingly unrelated to pro-shipping 1 2, but there might be more. Spinixster (trout me!) 07:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, yeah. This is a good point. I guess the real question is what the best unambiguous title would be? I have no real answers on that front. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My initial inclination would be to move the article to "pro-shipping and anti-shipping" as the most concise name that's also unambiguous. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a bit lengthy but I agree that's less ambiguous. Should I wait till it's off the front page to move it? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Potential alternation: "Pro- and anti-shipping"? A bit shorter, though the hanging hyphen may be visually unpleasing for some. MSG17 (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could something like "Taboo shipping discourse" or "Ethical shipping discourse" also work, or is that still too unclear? I don't know if "pro-shipping and anti-shipping" meets with the "Naturalness"/"Consistency"/"Concision" parts of WP:CRITERIA. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article titled "Ethical shipping discourse" would, at least I think, prime a reader for a general survey of discourse about ethics in shipping; similar for an article titled "Taboo shipping discourse". However, this article isn't a general survey of those but refers specifically to the specific pro-shipping/anti-shipping discourse which uses ethics and taboos as signifiers but is—or at least, according to reliable sources is—a form of community boundary maintenance and a moral panic. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the term "shipping discourse" was being used in large media sites like The Mary Sue as far back as 2020 (note the headline, "Shipping Discourse: Do Ships Need to Be Unproblematic?"), and on blogging sites like Tumblr as far back as 2017 ("i declare shipping discourse as over. let’s all go home"). This blog had a 2016 post with the subject tag "shipping discourse" (plus, the blog's whole name is "Shipping Discource" [sic]).DS (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)timestamps are wrong because I posted this on April 18 2024 but forgot to sign[reply]

Drive-by opinion: this article shouldn't exist. There's not much evidence in this article that "shipping discourse", specifically, is independently notable as a topic beyond shipping in general (the term being used in and of itself doesn't mean that it's an actual encyclopedic topic); there's no length considerations (together these articles are less than 30KB prose), and to actually understand this article requires explaining what shipping is, anyhow. It cannot effectively stand alone. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The presence of multiple academic papers about this subject specifically (as opposed to just shipping in general) clearly indicates, in my opinion, that this subject has notability separate from shipping in general. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be extremely undue weight for the shipping article itself to cover all this. Second what Di said above; the sources used are specifically about this discourse dynamic, and often have very little to do with actual pairings of characters, and way more to do with analyzing the discourse within the community. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it's evident that this is a drive-by opinion because you didn't read the sources used here. what's the point of this comment? take it to AfD (it was already taken there and speedy kept!) if you think it should be deleted ... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a pitch:

  1. We create an article on shipping discourses in general, including pro- and anti-shipping as well as other notable debates. As said above, just because it's mostly known for the pro-shipping thing does not mean it doesn't have other meanings.
  2. We move this article (on the pro- and anti-shipping debate) to another title. A poll can be conducted to see which title is the best one.

What do you think? Spinixster (trout me!) 13:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that could work, but wouldn't the first part be better suited for expanding Shipping (fandom) itself? As far as I can tell, this is the only specific discourse that has received large amounts of academic coverage by itself. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My inclination is similar to Generalissima's that part one would be better for expanding shipping (fandom) itself. I think an article about all possible shipping discourses would be too much like—WP:COATRACK isn't quite right, but something like that, in the sense of it smooshing a bunch of things that just happen to be plausibly called the same thing together. As if we made a "2024 general election" article and put information about several different nations' elections in that same article. What I think is at issue is not that the article isn't about all possible shipping discourses but that the current article name of "shipping discourse" either is or at least plausibly reads as generic in a way that inhibits immediate recognition of the article topic. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree there. This could be solved with a hatnote, but I think when most people think of "shipping discourse" they think of pro- and anti-shippers. We don't need to be overprecise here. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree upon reflection. There's a lot of guys named Joe Smith, but like, people are probably only thinking about one of them when they type in Joseph Smith. We might be able to hatnote Shipping (fandom) for information about ship rivalries outside of the Pro/Anti-ship conflict. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison to names clarifies this a lot. This is, in other words, the primary topic. Sorry to have made such a fuss only to end up here. I'm much more at ease with this article title remaining "Shipping discourse".
I do still think "shipping wars" should redirect to shipping (fandom) rather than here. When a reader thinks "ship wars", I think they expect Zutara versus Kataang—shipping (fandom), in other words. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's a fair point! I mostly had that for the sake of the hatnote, lol. Feel free to change the redirect if you see fit. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good! Ship wars now directs to shipping (fandom), and I trimmed the hatnote here. (If any user thinks a different hatnote would be fitting, I suspect I'd have no reason to oppose.) Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Just a quick note here, but in my view, all of the content on this page should be merged to Shipping (fandom) in a reduced form of course, as it would be a good addition to that page. I say this because the page itself has some good sources, but primarily draws from two sources: Urbańczyk 2022 (cited twelve times) and Aburime 2022 (cited twelve times), and lesser so for Scodari & Felder 2000 (cited four times), Fazekas 2022 (cited four times), van Monsjou & Mar 2019 (cited once), Jenkins 1992 (cited once), and Burkhardt, Trott & Monaghan 2021 (cited once). That citation overlap should make it easier to shorten it, merging the "Background" page into the "Etymology" and "Notation and terminology" sections of the Shipping (fandom) page (there's already some overlap, but there's also some new content), while merging the existing "viewpoints" and "analysis" sections of the present main page into one, then merging those combined sections into a new section of the Shipping (fandom) page. Additionally, the Bibliography section of the present main page could also be merged into the Shipping (fandom) page as a new section (this could possibly encourage people to add more sources about fandom shipping there).
All in all, I think this page is a good start, but I think it would help people more if the two pages were merged together. And we could discuss here whether you think such a merger is a good idea and your other thoughts (like what should be merged and what shouldn't), Historyday01 (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Historyday01 I thought about this and discussed it with other users before writing this. What I ended up feeling is that a merger would be extremely undue weight in comparison to shipping in general. There is a third academic source about this specific discourse im working to incorporate, but it is in Polish, so translation has been needed.

On Shipping itself, I think more than a paragraph or two would be undue weight here. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that is a good point. How about merging at least one section to the shipping (fandom) page, perhaps the "background" section? I could see some overlap there with what is presently in the "Etymology" and "Notation and terminology" sections. Historyday01 (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns of bias

[edit]

All information presented in the article and more than half the sources seem to lean one way rather than there being a completely neutral framing. There is little to no information on this Pro Ship faction, yet most of the information about the Anti Ship group seem to come from members of the Pro Ship. Is this unknown to the editors/Wiki moderators? Or is this because the page is new, and with few neutral sources out on the web to link back to? (Note: This is my first time posting a Talk on Wikipedia, but I have edited a page or two before. Apologies in advance for any unprofessionalism/ unnecessary disturbance caused.) 174.48.92.61 (talk) 09:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really tried to find stuff for the anti-ship position, but there just is not reliable sourcing available that elaborates on anti-ship positions from their own perspective. Pande (2024) offers the critique that "pro-shippers" often label valid criticism of fanfiction as "anti", but it doesn't elaborate on the actual anti-ship vs pro-ship conflict. Alas; it's disappointing. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was also concerned on this line. The lack of sources leads to a sort of false balance as the IP editor indicates, and one of the main tactics used in tthese arguments is that of false equivalence, which I have seen coming up over and over. Unfortunate that we are treading in waters infrequently studied or written about by established authors, and when it is written about, it's atrocity tourism. Reconrabbit 21:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think another issue is despite claims to the contrary, "anti-shipping" isn't necessarily a coherent group (I'd argue proshippers aren't either, even.) There's no specific political structure with defined leaders. They're, in practice, very broad terms. It's hard to really study and write about them as you would a political party or similar. 2603:6010:F3F0:A810:2582:679D:2691:DE87 (talk) 08:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pro-shippers are more of a clear group than anti- as I see it, since the latter group is only defined by their opposition to the former. It is like you say; any analysis would just be looking at criticisms from individuals, most of which would not be considered due weight as a majority opinion. Reconrabbit 11:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Generalissima, I believe that the concerns raised here are valid and that they would probably disqualify this as a GA under the criteria of "broadness", which notably wasn't brought up on the GA review. Also, on the criteria of neutrality and stability, which could be debated. The more I look at the review the more I feel like things were missed. All of the GA criteria should be considered in a review, even the ones that can feel procedural at times like "ongoing edit wars". Reconrabbit 06:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reconrabbit I would suggest you start a GAR then; I feel that it's a bit of a bizarre ask to actively buck the consensus of all reliable sources on a subject matter, however; we follow the views of reliable sources, and it would fall into OR to make arguments that RSes have not made. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 09:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Generalissima I don't believe we ought to dismiss the consensus of the many strong sources linked within, but I feel that the way in which the articles and their contents are presented could be refined. The article still reads largely as an original (though well-researched) opinion/analysis piece, rather than an encyclopedic article meant to aggregate such primary sources. Hisuiyumi (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Urbańczyk points out (albeit briefly) that the most radical acts of antis are not representative of the majority (common in a lot of movements, though I personally wouldn't classify "anti" as a cohesive group at all as the sources do as they "share a number of core beliefs"). One of my major issues is that a lot of the sources are drawing from a demographic survey that is a Google Form with 2,000 respondents; we're working from numbers that are better than the statistics used to characterize the entire furry fandom, but it was still a narrow scope. Reconrabbit 14:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I feel that the straightforward usage of "anti" within the article feels rather loaded, as the term has seen use in contexts outside of specifically this topic of shipping discourse. Many of the sources linked (save for Urbańczyk, primarily) take care to put 'anti' within quotes (to designate its primary usage as an exonym; as Reconrabbit says, it's not much of a self-descriptive group identity) and/or use the more specific terms of anti-fan or anti-shipper. I think changing that terminology could be one good step towards making the article read more neutrally. Hisuiyumi (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this; using the term "anti" instead of "anti-shipper" would be the same as using "pro" instead of "pro-shipper".
"Pro-fiction" is a term used in these spaces as well, dating back a few years. I see it's not mentioned in the article, and I inquire if it should be? Or would this muddy the waters too much? WildnWest (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@2603:6010:F3F0:A810:2582:679D:2691:DE87 I agree with this point, as the usage of "anti" seems to be largely an exonym. Hisuiyumi (talk) 12:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issues in the Background section

[edit]

There are a couple things in the background section that I think should be addressed:

  • The section does not really go into the emergence of the anti/proship discourse itself, only the general background to understand what the discourse is about. (That is to say, this section should 1, establish the background and history of fanfiction and shipping, and then, 2, ideally detail the actual history of these discourses themselves.) I would suggest moving the sentences about Voltron to the background section, as to my understanding it was the flashpoint that helped coalesce many of these discourses.
  • While it is true, the claim about anonymity on platforms in "Internet fandom and AO3” is not really supported by the source given (Urbańczyk).

Sandtalon (talk) 06:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DNIs

[edit]

Could the concept of DNI be mentioned? I found some sources but couldn't think where I'd add it. [1] [2] [3] Web-julio (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think DNIs are not that much related to shipping discourse. Sure, one may choose to DNI proshippers or antishippers, but that's only one of the choices. The sources pretty much says so, too. Spinixster (trout me!) 02:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should caption mention incest?

[edit]

I think the average reader would not register that Wikipe-tan and Commons-tan are sisters and would be somewhat confused by the caption. The age gap (I think) would probably be a reasonable guess given the height difference, but sibling-ness? Not so sure (although not sure enough in the opposite direction to revert immediately). @Magatsu62, since you added this to the caption. Based5290 :3 (talk) 05:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree; I don't think the caption should mention incest, as it requires niche Wikipedia knowledge to recognize. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shipping_discourse&oldid=1259794406"