Talk:Fan fiction/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Broadened Fan Fiction Areas

The final paragraph is pretty messy: poor grammar and unreferenced statements. I tried to clean it up; hopefully it's more concise now. I removed statements regarding self-inserts, since they don't have anything to do with the topic of broadened fan fiction areas, and statements about UK TV shows, since TV shows aren't new areas.

Old version: With a larger exposure of the media to the world's population, the subjects of the fan fiction has broadened immensely to include bands, such as My Chemical Romance, Avenged Sevenfold, The Used, Panic at the Disco, Other than music personalities, fan tend to create their own set-ups for characters from the television shows they view. Many stories based on programs such as the popular UK television drama 'Skins'. Or programs such as 'The N' Channel's 'Degrassi- The Next Generation.'

My edit: With a larger exposure of the media to the world's population, the subjects of the fan fiction has broadened to include bands, such as My Chemical Romance, Avenged Sevenfold, The Used, and Panic at the Disco. -CaptainJae (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Y'know, I suggest deleting this section completely. Thoughts? -CaptainJae (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Strong suggestion

To remove links to Laura Hale's essays. She has no degree, no verifiable documentation of her studies and no credentials that would suggest that she is competent to speak on the history of fandom. Her works are not academic or researched in nature, and can barely be considered opinions. 204.210.185.39 (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain her site says she has a master's. I am seeing a very biased comment here - can you please post sources to verify your statements? --haha169 (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The Hale document used as a reference is pretty shoddy (tertiary or quaternary), and does not qualify as a reliable source; I've removed all references to it and asked for new cites instead. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Writing Contests Section

This seems more like an advertisement for "youroctober" and their writing contest than a section containing any verifiable information, and my suggestion is that it be removed. 68.197.255.86 (talk) 10:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

This article does not discuss both positive and negative perspectives of fanfic. Views expressed are exclusively positive. Even the external links point to rebuttals against anti-fanfic without listing the original anti-fanfic articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.16.243 (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to give some suggestions? From what I see, there really are not any negative effects of fan fiction. Heck, there aren't even anything in the article about positive effects - just stating what fan fiction is. Nothing else. --haha169 (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
There. I've removed questionable external links that I hadn't even noticed was there. That's about it with the NPOV. Please don't add templates if the issues is small and you could do it yourself. That's just attracting unnecessary attention. --haha169 (talk) 04:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd say that the quiality of fan fiction is, at times, very questionable, and therefore a negative aspect; however, that's a question of who writes fan fiction, not of the topic itself, so I don't think any change is needed. In fact, i considered adding bits about the notion of who writes it, but found, upon review, that doing so would be almost impossible to make NPOV. (I mean, stating things like, "Some writers fail to employ any grammartical rules and use very sloppy spelling, while others write as if they were attempting to do so for publication, with incredible neatness.")Somebody or his brother (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
The writing in fanfic is seldom very good, and not uncommonly terrible, but I don't think that is really a negative aspect. No one is harmed by reading a badly written piece of fanfic.--RLent (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Broaden the Entry

I have been reading this, being someone that is getting into fanfic myself, but I feel it's lacking slightly in the area of terminology. I read fanfic and the authors put things into their summaries talking about OOCness and other such abbreviations...and I don't know what that is. Could anyone say what that is or send a link out doing such? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.65.29 (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean like a Glossary of fan fiction terms? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Issue of Virtual Series

I have seen the article relating to the related genre of Virtual Series be repeatably made and then deleted citing that is is just fan fiction when the article does not mention this internet fiction genre anywhere. Should a new sub article be created and connected to this or should a subheading within the article be created?

Sandyer (talk) 06:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's a valid new subtopic; but it's got to be cited to solid sources, not blogs. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What would be considered solid sources as I know of serveral websites (not blogs) that have mostly orginal series written with some space alloted to Fanfiction, the bulk of the work however is original. Also the work done, does not contain any kind of Slash. Charmedheksie (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem likely that they meet our standards as reliable sources; they sound more like just non-notable fansites. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Links

The link to chilling effects was removed in edit [1], saying "NPOV" in the edit comment. I cannot see what NPOV issue the link has. --rtc (talk) 09:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe the reasoning was that chillingeffects is a highly non-neutral site on relevant controversies, and that citing them violates NPOV. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
But that reasoning is obviously incorrect, since citing a "highly non-neutral site" does NOT violate NPOV. --rtc (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The third link, "Advice on writing fan fiction", just goes to the blog of an author named Michael Stackpole. I'm sure the link was added in good faith because Stackpole wrote about this topic at some point, but that's scant consolation to anyone hoping to read his advice now. Anyone willing to dig up the relevant page and fix the link? 91.107.135.116 (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The link redirecting to "Quentin Tarantino's Star Wars?: Digital Cinema, Media Convergence, and Participatory Culture" by Henry Jenkins in previous revision did not link to the correct article but to MIT's landing page. Corrected by searching for article and replacing broken link with correct source --jordan za (talk) 11:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC+2)

Um, what?

In the romance/sexual fanfiction part, it lists the four main types. General is one of these, but then it says: Gen is an abbreviation for "general" and refers to stories which do not contain a romantic or sexual plot.

Um, what?

Also, shouldn't fanfiction FF etc. redirect here? 66.60.210.32 (talk) 09:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with that? It's similar to the fact that if you list all the subsets of a set, you must include the empty set. Although it should really say "do not centre around a romantic or sexual plot"; a fic can contain such a plot and still be gen. 91.107.168.205 (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Anne Mccaffrey

I cant edit wikipedia, but it should be pointed out that Anne Mccaffrey no longer prohibits fanfiction of her works, albeit with some limitations, as explained by this site: http://pernhome.com/aim/?page_id=20

All you probably need to do is remove her name from the list, since its no longer accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.236.75.100 (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Ultimate fan fiction site

I'm not sure how to put this but my wife writes celebrity fan fiction at ultimatefanfic.com. It is constantly updated with new stories and chapters. It is a pretty new site. She started out writting on quizilla.com. I'm just trying to get the word out. So if anyone could link to her site it would be great. It also has a link page to anyone who needs a link back. Just email me at [redacted] and i will be glad to add the link to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tp4266 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the link you added. As we, here at Wikipedia don't want you posting other sites because we're greedy. --NeilN talk to me 15:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Your enthusiasm for your wife's RPF is appreciated, but even beyond Wiki policy, if we attempted to link all fan sites ... well, there are thousands. But we're complaning still, even though we are easily one of the most popular sites on the web. Longchenpa (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Japanese doujinshi

If you want to say "fanfiction" in Japanese, it's 二次創作(nijisousaku: lit. secondary creation (of literary or artistic nature)) and if you want to be clear it's a product of that, it is 二次創作物(nijisousakubutsu). And doujinshi doesn't mean fanfiction or 二次創作 on its own at all. Though perhaps it is true that the vast majority of copies of doujinshi is fan fiction, I think the majority of the titles is still orignal. It also seems to me that the article sounds like "Shotaro Ishinomori and Fujiko Fujio" made fan fiction. If so, is there any source for that? And the line "At this time dōjin groups were used by artists to make a professional debut." is also very questionable. I think it's rather recent phenomenon, and even when that is the case there are few, and though doujin has a connotaion of "group" they often published alone or didn't belong to a particular group to publish doujishi. The part "This changed in the coming decades with dōjin groups forming as school clubs and the like." is misguided; doujinshi is rather a borrowed word by community of people who draw manga from other communities which have doujinkai(doujin club/society) or whatnot who published their doujinshi as their periodical or journal. So a group of friends or school club comes first and when they want to publish their magazine or journal, then there is a doujinshi, and why the article is written as though it is related to fanfiction? --220.99.136.180 (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Assumptions made about female readers of Fan Fiction

In the section "Romantic or sexual pairings," it is stated that "While husbands who are attracted to an actress often search for revealing photographs of her, fat, lazy housewives attracted to an actor are more likely to seek out erotic stories featuring a character he plays," yet no research has been cited to back the claim concerning the physical characteristics, level of motivation, and current state of employment of female readers. This statement needs to be edited to remove these faulty claims. Bhoya (talk) 03:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That's vandalism for you. --Melab±1 ☎ 19:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Article quality, vandalism, and unencyclopedic tone

This article is a hodge podge thrown together by people who I assume to be fanfiction authors. Vandalism is interwoven into making it difficult to revert. Mentioning things "shorter than a drabble" is unecyclopedic and subjective. --Melab±1 ☎ 19:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Fan Labor vs. Fan Works

Is this the correct term? I understand the need to have a broad term that encompasses various media, but I haven't heard the term "fan labor" within the fan communities or in the published academic works I've read on fanfiction. "Labor" doesn't seem to capture the flavor of "fan works" which is what I've more commonly heard. Longchenpa (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard the term "fan works" used as having a specific definable meaning; whereas the bibliography at the fan labor article seems to attest to the use of that term (mostly by mundanes, as opposed to members of organized fandoms, where we have the fine old fannish term "fanac" to encompass all this and more). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I have never heard of "fan labor" outside of Wikipedia, but I do hear fanworks and fanac. However, "fanworks" may be an Organization for Transformative Works thing. Fanwork = creative work of art by a fan in any medium. "Fan labor" sounds much broader, like it includes putting labels on envelopes. Make of that what you will.--Duesouthfan (talk) 06:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
As I said, "fan labor" is one of those odd terms coined by outside observers to describe what the population being studied does. Most anglophone Americans don't realize, for example, that for classifying and sorting relatives they use what anthropologists term an Eskimo kinship system. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the Citation Needed tags

Hey folks, sorry for adding a bunch of tags, but there are a lot of statements in here which don't appear to be sourced, or where the sourcing on them is unclear. I know a lot of these things are true, but we need to find proper citations for them. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

potential source

BBC World Service at 48:15 does a bit about fanfiction, taking as a jumping off point Annie Proulx 's reaction to Brokeback Mountain fanfction (she's not happy). I was initially at the checkout counter when it came on so I am not sure what and how much of this might be encyclopedic useful. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Do not delete "Categories" section while we're working on it, please >_>

Okay, a section regarding "Categories and types" of fan fiction was labeled for, and needed, expansion. So I did that, keeping to things that could be verified and describing it as neutrally as possible. And though I noted where information could be found, I knew the "citation" needed better formatting and in at least one case a full referential cite or three. While I was looking into how to do this ALMOST THE ENTIRE SECTION in progress, got completely erased, with, bizarrely, only the section on Mary Sues (which is reasonably well-sourced but barely at all connected to "Categories and types" of fan fiction), being just about the only part left.

PLEASE do not do this. This makes it harder to edit the thing. This is all verifiable, or should be; I just didn't format it the right way in terms of referring to sources, I'm sure, because I haven't been a frequent contributor on here in years and have forgotten much of the process for formatting a reference/citation like that and also needed to hunt down some links.

I worked hard on the section, and pretty much all of the info is COMPLETELY verifiable, it just will take a little bit to get it properly cited up, particularly for someone like me who hasn't done it in a while and needs to brush up again.

The best approach I feel, rather than COMPLETELY removing it entirely, is a cite needed, at best, and/or bringing it up on the Talk page. As it is, I had to revert the thing just to find the text that I was trying to add references to, which makes it much harder to improve the article. Particularly since it went from at least addressing that "genres like romance exist in it" to...basically making it sound like the only genre that exists is Mary Sue stories. Which is just...not an accurate picture.

Please, instead of completely deleting this content, could we just help get it cited properly? Like I said, I'm rusty, but I am editing here and adding the content in Good Faith. 97.104.76.15 (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

One reason I feel that it was not a good idea to remove the content referenced entirely, is that the reason given was something like "unsourced" but...there's...a reference in there that was literally removed with the deletion of the content. Like, as in, at least one line already HAD a properly-cited reference BEFORE I got there, and even that line was removed. This is why I feel it was overkill. If you feel individual lines or assertions are "off" or need citations that I haven't already done or done the "right" away, just say so...don't delete three entire paragraphs wholesale. You know? Like I said: engage me on this :) We can improve the section without leaving it anemic, I promise. 97.104.76.15 (talk)
Seriously? Stop doing this. We had an edit conflict just now because I was trying to add cites and sources while somebody removed an entire three paragraphs again, wholesale, even including the sourced line in the middle of second one. Please, stop doing this. And while you're at it, please explain why you're removing the entire section wholesale with very little explanation, including the sourced line, instead of engaging with me on this as requested. Because it's very confusing and frustrating, when I'm trying in Good Faith to add AND SOURCE content, and it keeps getting removed almost as quickly as I edit. 97.104.76.15 (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
It is the WP:BURDEN of the person restoring content to provide the sources as they restore it, not an hour later. And the content must but supported by reliably published sources not nerdnexus.com or fanfiction.net.
themarysue and dailydot are barely acceptable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fan fiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Fan fiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fan fiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fan fiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Fan Studies

Would it be a good idea to add a section here on significant academic studies of fan fiction? Margaretofwessex (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fan_fiction/Archive_3&oldid=1181587781"