Forums: War Room → Canon shipping page and Fanon shipping page

I noticed there was a debate over whether certain ships should be considered on the shipping page. It seems that there is a division between whether certain ships should be included due to their validity (objective). It's really objective to say whether a certain ship is more likely to happen and therefore should be included on the shipping page. So I propose a page for strictly canon ships. And all other ships (which will all be treated equally, even Nabu) can have a page on the Fanon site. If a ship becomes canon then it can easily be moved, and if a ship breaks up it can also easily be removed. Zutara would be on the Fanon shipping page, as would Nabu, Korrasami, Ty Zula, and anything else that's not strictly canon. And of course a link between the pages. What do we think? Koh Koh the Face Stealer 21:11, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

However, Zutara is probably the largest Avatar: The Last Airbender ship. Matey Y. (talk • A:TLoM)  23:04, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

I understand that Matey. But as far as we know it's not canon and just as fictional as Mappa. Instead of distinguishing between ships objectively by saying what ships we deem are plausible are what ships we deem aren't I am proposing a much more objective approach. Canon or Fanon. Koh Koh the Face Stealer 23:09, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. The shipping page is a place where fans should be able to find more information on ships, not just ones which are canon. At that point there would be no point in the page; most relevant information would be on relationship pages, Truly Ferret (a •) 23:30, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it should just feature the top five Avatar: The Last Airbender shippings and the top five The Legend of Korra shippings, canon first in order of popularity, non-canon second, again, in order of popularity. Matey Y. (talk • A:TLoM)  23:33, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

But Ferret that doesn't solve the problem that the page is having with some ships being considered more important than others...subjectively of course. And shipping is almost a purely fanfic activity, especially when the ships aren't canon. I agree that shipping is important but I don't there is a way to objectively decide what ships are valid and what ships aren't without separating canon ships from fantasy ships. It's already really straddling the line as is. Koh Koh the Face Stealer 23:38, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

I understand the motivation of this proposal, and I absolutely agree with the problem raised, but I'm not sure simply removing anything that didn't canonically happen will actually solve the problem. We've had conflicts over what was seen as "happening" in the past in terms of relationships in the series. Also, a major issue is that the shipping page is intended to be a "real world" article. As Ferret said, it needs to a complete overview of the subject of shipping as seen by fans. I think that's quite important for its overall usefulness. Maybe we should just acknowledge that there will inevitably be conflict over its contents. The 888th Avatar (talk) 00:34, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

Matey I think your method would limit objectivity too so I like it. And 888th and Ferret I understand your saying that the shipping page is designed to give an overall view of ATLA/LOK ships, and their importance of the fandom and I genuinely see your point. but I still feel like shipping is more of a fanon activity than anything. After all there are very few canon ships and a ton of fanon ones. I guess removing the non canon shipping would leave the page bare though. Have we considered a list of all of the fanon ships then a link to avatar fanon wiki for each one? Or as Matey suggests, list the top 5 ships and link the rest to the fanon wiki? Koh Koh the Face Stealer 00:47, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

Matey, your proposal is interesting, but how would we get such numbers? The most logical thing is a poll, but where would we put it? If it were on here, the anons and others who are currently complaining would feel left out. It'd be the comments situation all over again. If we were to put it on the shipping page, other users may feel like they were left out of an important decision because they don't check that page. While it's a good idea, it isn't correct. I understand that there does need to be some deciding factor between the two. But confirmed canon ships shouldn't do it, nor should the top 5. Truly Ferret (a •) 04:03, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

It could be done with a Ba Sing Se Times poll. We could also write a blog post about it. Then the community could vote for the top few canon and top few non-canon ships in both Avatar: The Last Airbender and The Legend of Korra. However, I thought there were websites where people subscribed to a shipping. Matey Y. (talk • A:TLoM)  17:02, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

Per 888, ATFF, and Matey. I like Matey's idea because it will organize the shippings in a popularity order, which would be ideal for the shipping page.  Technology Wizard  Wall  Contribs  05:31, July 17, 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure the Ba Sing Se Times could spare two polls. Your idea is intriguing, but I think I'll be staying neutral on this subject. KettleMeetPot (wall • contribs) 06:26, July 17, 2012 (UTC)

I think that it would be a good idea to make them subpages of a shipping page. The Shipping page would explain what "shipping" is and how it applies to the world of Avatar. Then the two subpages would be split between canon and fanon. Canon on one page, fanon on the other. This way, we're separating them without actually pulling them completely apart. All you need is the Parent Tab Template in order to make this happen and I'd be glad to help in setting it up. I can also post links to examples if anyone would like to see how the tabs work.DancePowderer Talk 05:37, July 19, 2012 (UTC)

No, we don't use subpages or tab templates in our mainspace. The idea has been rejected in the past. The 888th Avatar (talk) 05:41, July 19, 2012 (UTC)

Then it would seem to me that the best way to separate them is just make two separate sections using the normal large heading.DancePowderer Talk 20:24, July 19, 2012 (UTC)

I really like the idea of subpaging the content. I don't see how it being rejected in the past is really a valid argument. Though I'm sure you have a good reason 888th :). But aside from whatever past reasoning has been decided, I think the issue needs to be revisited since the shipping page is having so many issues and I have a hard time going along with the "simply accept that the shipping page will always have conflict" argument because I think this proposal was made to limit the conflict, not completely eliminate it. Koh Koh the Face Stealer 21:21, July 19, 2012 (UTC)

Previous rejections come from arguments, not from whims. Subpages of the mainspace are not allowed on this wiki or most other wikis such as Wikipedia because of the confusion between a title that needs a slash (like Dock/Xu/Bushi) and a title that is merely a subpage (theoretically like Shipping/Canon). It's also why we don't do things like Aang/History or Aang/Relationships. This kind of confusion is quite easily avoidable. Not to mention that encyclopedias don't have "sub-entries" or the like. The 888th Avatar (talk) 01:12, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

A simple solution for the Dock/Xu/Bushi page issue would be to use commas and move it to "Dock, Xu, Bushi" or "Dock, Xu, and Bushi". I work on another wiki that uses tabs and it makes things much less cluttered and easier to work with. I'm not proposing the use of tabs for all the broken up pages like Aang's Relationships, just the shipping page. The separate pages for extra large character history and relationship sections work, I'm not arguing that, but can't the shipping page be an exception due to the types of disagreements that go on there? Shipping is really the only page on which I would think of even suggesting using tabs.DancePowderer Talk 02:23, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

Dock/Xu/Bushi is one example. The fact is, we don't want to restrict ourselves from having articles with any kind of character, and so we'd rather not have a slash represent a subpage in the mainspace. Not to mention that these subpages are, to the casual reader, a pain to search for because they don't expect the existence of subpages.

I also do not believe in tabs as a professional encyclopedic tool in the first place. Not only are they really tacky, they suggest multiple entries on the same page, which isn't consistent with the idea of an entry in an encyclopedia. We should, as online encyclopedias do, stick to one page being equivalent to one entry.

Finally, no exceptions on standards should ever be made for encyclopedic articles merely because there is "conflict". Wikipedia's articles have even more conflict than ours (Scientology is a particularly famous example), and yet they don't see fit to make compromises on encyclopedic consistency and standards just to reduce "conflict". We're here to write the most encyclopedically accurate entry for shipping possible, and everything that should be mentioned must be mentioned. Conflict in itself is not an adequate excuse to compromise on that goal. The 888th Avatar (talk) 10:27, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

888 really has a point. We strive so hard to make this wiki and its contents as accessible as possible for everyone, so why would we move away from that now because there is conflict about the content of a page? Creating sub pages on a wiki that in general does not have that habit will be confusing for most people and they will not understand. Though I do agree that "agree that there will always be conflict" is something annoying to agree with, it is the reality. Even if we were to divide the pages, that would not reduce any conflict, that would merely shift place of the conflict to the sub pages. People will still debate over what happened and what not. People can write blogs for example what canonical prove there is that Toph really had a crush on Sokka and people can write blogs on why she did not have said crush. It's shipping and people will "canonically" see happening what they want to see. Lady Lostris (talk • HotN) 13:27, July 20, 2012 (UTC)