Category talk:Musea Zine Hall of Fame

Is Musea's zine's hall of fame really an encyclopedia-like category worthy of ZineWiki? I'm thinking it's just a little online hall of fame done by one person and not really something we'd cross-reference (it also seems like a little bit of self-hyping on Tom's part, of which he does constantly to alt.zines, which is OK in a discussion forum, but maybe not OK in a Wiki). But, if the plan is to do more cross-references like these as categories, we should probably think about how we'd want to expand it. Like a category for zines that have been in the Zine Yearbook or the Top 100 Ranked zines from Zine Guide, etc. I guess I don't see these things as true categories though. Thoughts? dan10things 19:30, 21 August 2006 (EDT)

Well, I wasn't sure how 'recognized' the category was. I've created quite a few catagories to help facilitate navigation, giving viewers more options and hanging out on the site alittle more. Some of our entries were really becoming secluded with only linking to each other and not branching out. The category tags really don't hurt anything and could be removed by any of the zinesters who may not wish to be associated with said tag. I'm open for ideas on other tags, some of the ones on Wikipedia seem alittle silly too, but they're nice for finding related, and sometimes, unrelated but interesting articles. Alan Fall of Autumn 20:05, 21 August 2006 (EDT)

Dan look at the list

Dan, I encourage you to look at the ZHOF list - which would you not include? I think the proof is in the list - that says most clearly whether its worthy of zinewiki - it is IMO certainly a reasonble list Also no one has to click to go to them. Zine World, Clamor, Pathetic Life, Factshee Five, etc. etc. who wouldn't include these? Musea 13:36, 22 August 2006 (EDT)

Also I'll add this - this list was done over many many years. It wasn't just set up in an afternoon. Each bunch of inductees was the best of that time and period. This was no lite decision. Also from the first year on, ALL zinesters were asked for imput - it has always been open to all zinesters. Musea, my zine has been around since 1992 - and I am a reviewer for ZW from the start, so I've seen a fair share of zines to choose from. Again look at the list and pick out one that falters or suggest one I missed. If someone else wants to spend a decade looking through zines and coming up with their own Hall of Fame, you are welcome to. But it isn't easy nor very rewarding. Musea 13:45, 22 August 2006 (EDT)

And upon rereading your complaint - each group of inductees was listed and printed in a hard copy print version of Musea and distributed as a print zine. Also each inductee gets a very nice diploma looking sheet that varifies their induction status with not only when they were inducted but what number inductee they were - many tell me they frame and hang them up on their walls. Musea 13:49, 22 August 2006 (EDT)

Tom- You misunderstood my question. I think your website does have a good info on some of the important zinesters over the years (i.e. your zine hall of fame is a great little resource). What I was questioning is whether on the Wiki we should add a bunch categories like personal websites or individual publications like you've now done. To me adding a category for every zine covered in your hall of fame would be like adding a category for every zine covered on Chip Rowe's Zinebook website (which up until this ZineWiki has been the main online resource for zine history and info). That kind of tagging might work in meta tags, but doesn't seem worthy of it's own category on a Wiki that's supposed to be more like an encyclopedia. Categories up until now were very broad subsets of zining, not individual websites. Also, five or ten years from now if you no longer have your website, this category won't make sense and all the listings will have to be edited - whereas zines, zine libraries, review zines, etc. are all permanent categories. This is a discussion not about your individual webpage, but about the style of the ZineWiki in general and do we want to have categories for less permanent or smaller individual things. The librarian in me thinks that the categories should be streamlined to only the essential large permanent subsets of zining, more like subject listings in a library catalog. dan10things 14:04, 22 August 2006 (EDT)

My opinion, and I think we should keep this open to discussion, I think that additional tags/categories are fine for projects of a certain age. It sounds like Tom's been doing this for a while. I don't see the harm in having additional tags/categories for things like this, including additonal tags like "Zines reprinted in the Zine Yearbook," "Zines featured in Best Zine Ever," etc.

On Wikipedia they have tags/categories such as "Snakes on a Plane" that's used to tag every article relevent to the movie, from songs and bands found on the soundtrack, to directors, producers, etc. I assume it's because if someone were to find that movie interesting, they could then find other pieces of media related directly and (by following various links on those pages) indirectly related to the movie they enjoy. Doing the same for zines should be okay.

Because the wiki isn't paper, the additional tags/categories don't take up any excess room or create excess work, and actually, Tom has created numerous stub pages that we, and other users, can now add to, and that's great IMO. I'd like to see those pages developed and include some info on perhaps 'why' they were so important as to be inducted into the ZHoF. To cover the project ever disappearing, Tom has created an entry for the ZHoF that eplains what it is, and this could educate anyone, even after his website might disappear. I agree that we can't do it for every project that comes along and lasts six months, but if I'm not mistaken the ZHoF has been around for a decade?

Either way, that's just my opinion. It would be nice if others would weigh in too. =) Alan Fall of Autumn 14:30, 22 August 2006 (EDT)