21

Currently we have a tag for "Fantastic Beasts" whose wiki reads:

Use this tag to refer to the fictional book called 'Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them', the 2016 film of the same name, or the five-movie franchise it began. Use this tag with the [harry-potter] tag.

I find this very confusing and not fitting with our tagging conventions (especially when it comes to new works and ignoring tags due to spoilers).

Therefore I propose that we split the original book and film into two separate tags. I see two pretty straight forward options, which I have added as answers below.

I have added my two options to be voted on accordingly. Feel free to add other options if you have a different idea.

I prefer option 2 as it gives a greater level of clarity with 5 films coming out that will share the "Fantastic Beasts" prefix.

  • What about movie? Should we use that, or is the franchise now too big? – Kevin Nov 20 '18 at 16:34
  • @Kevin Why would [movie] be useful here? – TheLethalCarrot Nov 20 '18 at 16:37
  • @TheLethalCarrot: If we only had the movie and the book, then that's what movie is for. But since we've got the other films, I suspect it would become unworkable. – Kevin Nov 20 '18 at 16:38
  • @Kevin Oh so you mean [fantastic-beasts] for the fictional book and [fantastic-beasts][movie] for the film series? – TheLethalCarrot Nov 20 '18 at 16:39
  • @TheLethalCarrot: Yeah, but I don't think that would actually solve Skooba's problem (of not wanting to see spoilers for the new films in particular) so I haven't proposed it. – Kevin Nov 20 '18 at 16:40
  • 1
    @Kevin To be honest I don't like that solution even disregarding the spoilers for new films problem. Especially as we have ways to name different tags here without needing to do that. – TheLethalCarrot Nov 20 '18 at 16:41
13

Option 3

I don't think we need a tag for the fictional book; a quick search of questions tagged [fantastic-beasts] from before 2016 yields only 3 questions with only 1 about the fictional book. Widening that search for [harry-potter] fantastic beasts is:q created:2005..2015 returns 17 results and a quick leaf through shows only 2 or 3 of them are really about the fictional book.

  • 2
    So the source material is just a by-prodcut :P – Skooba Nov 19 '18 at 20:53
  • Since we have the characters, why can't the franchise be [fantastic-beasts-franchise]? – eshier Nov 20 '18 at 15:01
  • 2
    @eshier -franchise suffix's are frowned upon if I remember rightly and if there's a way to name it without it, which there surely is here, we should always prefer that. – TheLethalCarrot Nov 20 '18 at 15:02
  • 2
    I don't see how naming the film in full matters considering 4/5 will include subtitles or alternate name, presuming all 5 get made. Additionally, I think that you could work in something with Wizarding World, as that's what the HP universe is now being officially marketed as. – user31178 Nov 20 '18 at 21:51
  • @WebHead naming the film in full should be preferred to a partial name and year suffix in my opinion. – TheLethalCarrot Nov 20 '18 at 21:53
  • @TheLethalCarrot the problem I have with naming the film in full is that regardless of the number of questions, the book came first. It should have naming rights because if the character space had been available when it was created it would/should have been used. – Skooba Nov 21 '18 at 12:49
  • @Skooba I'd agree with you if 1) there was a use case for the book and 2) the book was more popular. The more popular tag should always, in my opinion, have rights to the more accurate tag name. – TheLethalCarrot Nov 21 '18 at 12:53
  • So what is the more accurate tag for The Crimes of Grindewald? – user31178 Nov 21 '18 at 13:18
  • @WebHead The name is in two parts so either the-crimes-of-grindelwald or fantastic-beasts-the-crimes-of-grindelwald should be fine, assuming the latter is short enough I didn't check. Whereas FBaWtFT is one full name and where-to-find-them wouldn't be the best tag even if it wasn't. – TheLethalCarrot Nov 21 '18 at 13:21
  • The full name for TCoG is too long for a tag I just checked... – TheLethalCarrot Nov 21 '18 at 13:29
  • 1
    @Skooba The source material is like 30 pages and not at all a 'basis' for the movies. It's just a dozen or so monsters and their descriptions (literally a cutesy real-life adaptation of an in-universe school textbook). So, yes, it's just a by-product :-) – TylerH Nov 21 '18 at 15:06
  • 1
    @TheLethalCarrot Looks like there is enough for a consensus here. I guess the next step would be to implement it. – Skooba Dec 4 '18 at 17:06
  • @Skooba Yup, drip feed them over a few weeks or so. I have created the tag so we can make a start when needed. – TheLethalCarrot Dec 4 '18 at 17:10
1

Option 2

-6

Option 1

  • Create a new tag for the film
  • Rewrite the original tag wiki to refer to only the book

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .