I'm still confused about what "mediafannish" means.

Some shows, for whatever reason, generate a lot of traditional fannish activity around them. Fan fiction, vids, discussion in fannish forums (LJ is the prime example these days).

Other shows, though popular or critically acclaimed, don't generate the same kind of activity.

If I, clueless as I am, step into Boxed Set to discuss Supernatural, Heroes or SG-1 (I think I'm on Season 3) am I stepping on the culture?

No. Also, you should start a discussion about Daniel's hair.

House and Bones get discussion, but that's generally between me and a few other like minds. I don't know that's it's relevant to the categorization.

I don't like this divying up idea. Boxed Set isn't broken, I don't think it's even swamped under a tidal wave of Heroes talk. And it's not exactly a monoculture of mediafannishness, either, though I'm having trouble trying to put my feeling about that into words. There is fannishness all over Boxed Set, certainly, and it's important, but there is also room for more [for lack of a better word] mundane discussions of plot, etc. and I, for one, really like that mix.

Did these not help?

This

I suspect that non-mediafannish types find endless FCM and "Speak to me about the the hotness of characters on Supernatural" discussions terrifically boring and WTF-y, because they're unaware of or uninterested in that component of the existing mediafannish culture of the thread.

combined with this

"Media fandom" in that context is a predominently female space, with more emphasis on squee and the emotional/libidinal aspect of the show and the fandom rather than the plottiness, with involvement in extra-textual activities (fanfic and fanvids) and a large overlap with the slash community.

confuses me.

you should start a discussion about Daniel's hair.

Ha! That, I could do.

It seems to me like there's crossover between The Office and Friday Night Lights, but that might just be Cindy's fault. Do those more realistic shows also draw from the House and GA pools?

Sorry. I was just trying to understand media fannishness. I suddenly felt like I don't quite belong in the thread, when that term came up. The discussion for The Office works fine, in Natter. Please don't try to fit that into any plans on my account. Not that many people here are all that interested in discussing it, here. We talk in LJ and are good with that, as far as I can tell.

I'm not advocating this necessarily, but here are the patterns I see. I'm trying to take a Jeffersonian follow-the-paths-then-build-the-sidewalks approach.

Broadcast Genre shows
Heroes - Genre, Not Mediafanish, Broadcast
Supernatural - Genre, Mediafanish, Broadcast
Smallville - Genre, Mediafanish, Broadcast

Sci Fi Channel
Battlestar Galactica - Genre, Mediafanish, SciFi Channel, Basic Cable
The Dresden Files - Genre, Not Mediafanish, SciFi Channel, Basic Cable
Torchwood - Genre, Mediafanish, Sci-Fi Channel, Basic Cable
Dr. Who - Genre, Mediafanish, Sci-Fi Channel, Basic Cable
Stargate - Genre, Mediafanish, Sci-Fi Channel, Basic Cable
Stargate: Aquarium - Genre, Mediafanish, Sci-Fi Channel, Basic Cable
Eureka - Genre, not sure of its media fandom status, Sci-Fi Basic Cable.

Broadcast Non Genre Shows
The Office - Not Genre, Mediafanish, Broadcast
Friday Night Lights - Not Genre, Mediafanish, Broadcast
House - Not Genre, Mediafanish, Broadcast
Grey's Anatomy - Not Genre, Mediafanish, Broadcast
Bones - Not Genre, Not Mediafanish, Broadcast

You could've put Lost in the Broadcast Genre, and VM in the Broadcast NonGenre groupings.

eta: Eureka is moved.

Yes, Eureka airs on the Sci-Fi Channel.

Hec, Eureka is a Sci-Fi Channel show.

We also have the basic issue: every time there's a new show, where will it be grouped? They come from all over the place -- including several on the list that are never aired in the US, and are DVD/ahem only -- and they are all different types, and there is no telling what will take hold and what won't. Intuitive grouping will have to be intuitive enough that everybody can, you know, intuit where new discussion should go, when it suddenly happens.

Realistically speaking, source is not a legit category for taxonomizing, because, e.g., Dr. Who and Torchwood go naturally together -- but one is aired in the US on basic cable, and the other is not and may never be, considering its content. I think it's possible to create simpatico groups, but I'm not sure how possible it is to create simpatico groups that can also be intuitive for new things.

I'm not looking for a perfect solution - just a better one.

This is key, I think. We've never been able to be perfect, and Tivoers or DVDers or tape-delayers (remember that??) have always had to find their own workarounds. It's one of the reasons we instituted NAFDA -- as a general-use workaround.

I'm ignoring mediafannishness. If you didn't need the term before, I don't think you need it now.

I think that, while the forum was low-traffic, you could have mediafannishness in there like -- a subtext. Vonnie and I would make eyes at each other*, and the mediafannish people would be pairing us off and writing porn about us, while the nonmediafannish would be like, "Nutty, do you have something in your eye?" Easy side-by-side parallel conversation, some overlap. It's only when we talk about blowing it up and tearing it to pieces that I worry about the mediafannishness being removed from it.

(* Sorry, Vonnie!)

As Hec says, it's only one sub-aspect of the multiplicity of Buffistaness, but it's one I want to preserve as we go forward. As many things as possible to as many people as possible (within reason)!

And to complicate things, Torchwood does not currently air in the U.S. And the new season of Dr. Who that's about to premiere is premiering in the UK, and who knows if/when it'll show up on Sci-Fi.