Talk:Fanon (fiction)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject Fan Fiction, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Fan Fiction. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles.

Contents

[edit] Bring back the List

I would like to request the return of the list of Fanon Facts. Whether the list is part of this article or as a seperate article. The list IS a valid piece of information that relates to the larger fanon article. Many people just now coming to wikipedia who may never have heard of fanon would probably consider such a list beneficial. I was once just such a person who had never seen an actual example of fanon even though I had heard of the term and an extremely vague idea of what it meant. The list was very helpful. Warwolf 10:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On article's general content

Having stumbled upon the term fanon some years ago, I was always curious about it, and was glad that Wikipedia had a listring on it, and was even more pleasantely surprised by the list of things that are fanon facts. Remember that the article claims that these are facts that fans have adopted regarding their favorite series/one-shot/novel/movie/etc. Thus, the list should have remained. I myself have provided not only a listing of a fanon fact, but the source from whence it came (though sadly not the exact issue as I do not remember it.), and was very annoyed to see the list of the fanon facts disappear from the article and have been wondering where they went to.

Warwolf 17:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It was split from the fanon page. Then that "List of Fanon Facts" page was deleted. I too bemoan its deletion but there was a vote on it and I believe it was an almost a unanimous deletion. Stupidhumanzz 19:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Fanon is definitely worthy of mention, but this article smacks of original research and loses the scholarly tone in its discussion on what does and doesn't qualify for the label. I suggest rewriting this article with better anthropological view of the issue. Instead of telling us what is or isn't fanon, or carrying over canon debates here, focus on how different groups of fans define and apply the term in general. The list of "fanons" is entirely unnecessary and may deserve its own article (if any at all). --Rev Prez 08:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since fanon itself is original ideas adopted by fans of whatever series, regardless of media as a fact, Rev Prez, wouldn't that stand to reason then that the research itself would have to be based on these 'facts' that fans have adopted? Original research is kind of a redundant comment since all research was at one point original. Warwolf 09:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

How can this be at all necessary? That this article exists at all serves as proof that wikipedia is little more than pop-culture fan masturbation with some decent science and math thrown in here and there. "Fanon" is defined as "Something fans of show X made up concerning show X's story/characters/continuity, etc." Who cares what they think? An actual encyclopedia reports facts. An article detaling the plot, production details, cast/crew, etc. of a Harry Potter movie is factual. An article that says "Some fans think Draco is part veela and he might be gay" is not. It is lower than opinion; it is masturbation. Keep dross like this on forums, where you can be surrounded by other like-minded folk who care about your opinions. "Fanon" is a word created as masturbation by fans of pop culture to define the pop-culture masturbation they go through on internet forums and chats. It has no relevance to anyone but those who created it, and thus no place in any encyclopedia, even Wikipedia. (Unsigned comment by 206.230.4.147)

To whoever wrote the comments about the list being 'masturbation'....stop using this term out of context. Warwolf 09:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Seemed pretty in-context to me. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

From ReBoot section: "he or she may be a zero binome, a one binome, a numeral, a robot-like sprite, a data sprite or even, unlikely but probable, a good virus"

What does that mean? --OGoncho 07:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter

Is there any proof of this statement being fannon: "Ron Weasley is actually Dumbledore. Ron accomplishes this through use of the hourglass." If not I think it should be removed AfterSpencer 14:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm removing it. It's absurd, and certainly not fanon. I've been around enough fans to know that if anyone believes this, it's a VERY small subset of fandom, and not widely accepted at all. Fieari 19:02, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
I've certainly seen the theory, and absurd as it may be, IIRC it's actually prevelant enough that it came to J.K. Rowling's attention. Redxiv 04:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
RedXIV, can you show where that came from? I don't believe that could actually be true. INBN 08:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing several items in order to condence the article a bit. Most of these are not prevalent enough in the fandom, or are not seriously considered as likely possibilities of canon. Ben-oni 03:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doctor Who

Does the idea that there is some explanation for the Eight Doctor saying he's half human, other than his actually being half human, count as fanon? Daibhid C 20:21 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

"As it is, are we going to add, for example, the fact that Captain America's shield is a vibranium/adamantium mix (which it isn't it's vibranium combined with iron by a catalyst which turned it into a indestructible alloy)? Or that the Master might be the Doctor's brother? -khaosworks 20:20, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)"

I actually think that the Doctor and the Master as brothers is a sufficiently important and prominent theory to be mentioned in the article. Therefore, I have been bold and added it. - Gildir 15:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mario

The article implies that there's no proof that the Mario Bros.' last name is Mario.

However, there's one recent issue of Nintendo Power in which a reader asks if it's true (derived from logic, NOT fanwork), of which the editor responds that it is.

While I can't be sure if this would be canon or not, if it isn't, it's very close to it.

[edit] Please revert it back

It seems I reverted to an edition that was already vandalized. Could someone please revert it back to the pre-vandalized edition? I don't know which one of them it is -- Snailwalker | talk 15:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tolkien

Although the "Fanon" article does not have references, I should have mentioned before now that the "Lord of the Rings" and "Silmarillion" sections I recently added (which were subsequently combined and expanded into the section "Tolkien" by pictureuploader) were inspired by the following thread on theonering.com:

http://forums.theonering.com/viewtopic.php?t=87886

I am especially indebted to Cressida's mention in that thread of the link between the Weasley twins and Elladan and Elrohir.

Incidentally, I myself feel that the portion of the "Tolkien" section that I contributed can legitimately be criticized using some of the arguments that appear on this talk page, such as Paul A's comment that "many of the examples are just ideas-that-have-been-proposed-in-fanfic, rather than ideas-so-widespread-that-fans-believe-them-as-if-they-were-canon". However, I thought it was better to put all the points into the article for criticism and editing by others than to omit anything that readers might find interesting.

Gildir 00:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is there no reference to any X-Files fanon? Scully's strawberry shampoo was one of the first and most widely-known examples of Internet fanon.

Yeah...why ARE there no references to X-Files fanon? Is that on a separate page? Kilyle 08:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"While interviews with the creators reveal that Trowa and Quatre were indeed intended to be homosexual" <-Refrence?

[edit] Split

This article should probably have the list elements (which make up such a large proportion of it!) split out into a List of fanon facts by series or something, since only the intro seems to really be about fanon. --maru (talk) contribs 02:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of the split myself...either way is fine with me. Kilyle 08:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] X-Men Cartoon Series

I'm not sure of the difference between the few X-Men cartoons I've seen and X-Men: Evolution, but Nightcrawler was established as a devout Catholic in one of the episodes of the series I'm familiar with. He even talks with Wolverine about faith in the midst of crisis, then gives Wolverine a Bible and says he's marked some passages that he might find comforting. Later on, Gambit and Rogue discuss faith, Gambit says it's random (with a gambling metaphor), Rogue gets mad at him and stomps off...and sees Wolverine in a Catholic church, reading from the Bible, kneeling by the altar, and crying. It was amazing to see this sort of thing portrayed positively and realistically on a children's cartoon series, even if (to my limited knowledge) it was never mentioned again. Should this info go in the X-Men: Evolution comment? Kilyle 08:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Ah, no. That was an episode of the 90s X-Men series, not Evolution. Jack Cain 11:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Totally and completely out of hand

I deleted the "List of fanon facts"

I'm sure it will be reverted by people managing this page as if this were their own website, but it shouldn't be. The goal of Wikipedia is not to have the most content imaginable. This article ceases to be an article about fanon when it begins to list the fanon of everything.

Be real. No one will look up the word 'fanon' if they are curious about inconsistencies within the story of Thomas the Tank engine. Such details, if notable, should go in the article about the series. Relevant examples that contribute to the understanding of the term are given (Star Trek, manga) without the need for a canonical list of all of them.

This article pretty much illustrates the difference between people looking to create an online encyclopedia and people who are thrilled at all the free webspace the wikimedia foundation is offering them. (not signed, from [69.181.157.208])

Thanks *so* much for taking drastic and destructive action without achieving consensus; that is really not how wikipedia works at all. Major changes to popular pages *will* get reverted, and continuing to perform them against consensus will get you locked and/or your IP banned. It's much more useful to negotiate than bomb from orbit, for both sides.
As to the root issue: how about a compromise? A split page, one for the root information on "what fanon means", and one which is a "List of fanon"? This has been proposed above, and seems to have some buy-in. -- Metahacker 04:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


Actually, I'd disagree Metahacker. Surely any notable or common fanon should be mentioned on the article for the canon in question, in a "Trivia" list or in the relevant sections (for instance, the fact that a lot of fans were expecting Hermione and Harry to hook up in Harry Potter and there was a bit of a minor fandom backlash when she ended up with Ron instead... that could go in sections about characters or plot or the reaction to the book). That would make perfect sense, I should think, and would keep this article (or any general "list of fanon" article, for that matter) from being a complete and total mess of almost completely unsourced and frequently non-notable (and half the time made-up) things. Similar problems were had with people trying to call every character they thought was "too perfect" to the "list of Mary Sues" over at Mary Sue, though the fact that the term is subjective and the fact that the additions of certain characters to the list caused minor flame-age of course made that decision to cut the "list of" a lot easier and more widely supported. In any case, the article was much improved after the removal the a similar list, and I dare say the same would happen here if we kept the "list of" fanon out.

Indeed, the fact that there are literally millions of stories out there that have fodder for potential fanon - not to mention series and such that have probably hundreds or thousands of items of fanon to begin with - means there is almost no way of keeping this article stable with a "list of", and the "list of" article (if seperated) would likely end up such a mess that people would give up on it and it would only become worse and worse and never get fixed. However, if you must have your little list, do please keep it in a seperate article, so that this poor thing can get some rest. An example here or there is one thing; an unending and relentlessly-added-to list is entirely another. Runa27 22:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I might get shot for this...

I just split the fanon page in two, one talking about fanon in general, the other showing the specifics. I hope this makes everyone happy, though I doubt it will so I humbly leave it in your hands to edit away and even revert it if you deem it necessary. Just trying to help... ^.^ --Stupidhumanzz 21:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misc. Material Moved For Readability

Removed from the article:

  • In the Doctor Who universe, the reason why The Doctor stole his TARDIS was to flee Gallifrey which was consumed with the Prydonian Academy Rebellion which was instigated by The Master.

I have never, ever heard of this. Anywhere. Ever. Can someone give me an example of where this has been said? —Paul A 03:06, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It was used in the Comics and reprinted in the Marvel Comics reprints.

Does anybody else think the list of examples is getting out of hand? It's grown quite large, and it seems to me that many of the examples are just ideas-that-have-been-proposed-in-fanfic, rather than ideas-so-widespread-that-fans-believe-them-as-if-they-were-canon. (The entry listing three contradictory ideas of Palpatine's first name is the icing on the cake: surely, by definition, if one of these names is fanon, no other name can be?) --Paul A 03:26, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

One of the things about fanon is it is not always constant (see, for example, the different first names suggested for Star Trek's Uhura). It's not a contradiction of the concept of fanon for there to be three different names for Palpatine. I agree, though, that the list of examples should focus on popular or widespread examples of fanon. For example, the idea that Spock was the first Vulcan in Starfleet, which has become an issue due to recent episodes of Star Trek: Enterprise. 23skidoo 02:52, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think there might be some disagreement about the root meaning of fanon, which the article seems to indicate means only those fan-invented facts that "everyone" agrees on, rather than the much larger set of fan-invented facts that only some subset of fans have agreed on. The latter would be nearly impossible to keep track of, whereas the former class is much more limited and achievable... -- Metahacker 13:53, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There's really no such thing as "fan-invented facts that 'everyone' agrees on", though. Even among interpretations of actual canon, there's usually a good bit of disagreement within any fandom. Needless to say, that's even more true of fanon "facts". Fanon simply means ones that are widely accepted.

I read the fanon article and I'm still having trouble as to what it is. There was a term on my television message boards called "fanwank", would this be it? Mike H 05:01, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

no "fanwank" are fan fiction stories or television episodes that are too self-referential to the past of the series concerned PMA 06:52, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hm. My understanding of it was that fanwank was what a fan did to fill in the gaps in bad storytelling. Mike H 06:53, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
The definition in the article is certainly, uh, problematic, and I've been meaning to address it for some time now. The real definition is "facts which have never been established as canon (and in some cases are even contradicted by canon) but are nevertheless believed to be or treated as canon by significant numbers of fans." The current definition makes it sound like "it's stuff that's canon, only the creators don't know it yet." -- Antaeus Feldspar 08:22, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The other thing is that some of the contributors appear to have been a bit vague on what constitutes "significant numbers of fans". --Paul A 05:50, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That, unfortunately, could be a lot more difficult to clean up. How could it be established that a particular bit of fanon is not believed by any significant number of fans? -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:35, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The difficulty is that the article is getting unweildy because people are adding every bit of trivia that could possibly be construed as fanon. I think we should keep in mind that encyclopedic articles are meant to be comprehensive, but not exhaustive. This article really should be about the definition of fanon, how it arises, and just a few examples, not a genre-by-genre or series-by-series breakdown. As it is, are we going to add, for example, the fact that Captain America's shield is a vibranium/adamantium mix (which it isn't it's vibranium combined with iron by a catalyst which turned it into a indestructible alloy)? Or that the Master might be the Doctor's brother? -khaosworks 20:20, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree, the example-bloat is problematic. TBH, I'm leery of even including in the definition "treated as canon by s. n. of f." because that opens the door to "I know it's not canon, but I like it better than canon!" which a) is a greatly expanded category, b) is a redefinition of "fanon" that I have never seen anywhere else but Wikipedia.
Also, looking at the examples, a lot of them fall into the categories of a) were at some point planned to be canon, but never made it to that status (like Lt. Saavik's mixed heritage, established in a scene deleted from Wrath of Khan) or b) established in "Expanded Universe" materials but not in the actual canon. I'd say that a) may count as fanon, and we may want to mention that this is the source of much fanon, but b) does not. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:30, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think b) does count as fanon because it is not acknowledged by the owners of the franchise, and therefore the writers of the TV series and movies are under no obligation to pay any attention to them. Examples include Star Trek: Nemesis which contradicted most of Diane Duane's Rhiannsu series of Trek novels, and Star Trek: Enterprise which rendered an earlier novel, Starfleet Year One completely moot. There is also a school of thought (one I don't agree with) that says even the licenced novels by Pocket Books and Bantam are fanfic, and fanfic begats fanon. 23skidoo 19:01, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The reason I'd tend to exclude b), though, is that it's not established by the fans. It's still established by the creators (or those acting as their agents), so even if it's not canon, it doesn't really seem like it's fanon either. Of course, that seems like a contradiction; why would a) be fanon if b) is not? Oddly, though, I think it still counts that way -- if a scene has been entirely deleted or a script has been cancelled, most non-fans would never know that it had been proposed or planned (or at least, until deleted scenes became a fairly standard DVD extra.) The most likely route for that non-canon premise to become fanon is for fans to find out about it, decide that they still want to use it even if the producers don't, and incorporate it into their fanworks, from which it spreads out into the general fan-consciousness and is likely to be mistaken for canon the way actual fan creations are. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:23, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Someone who knows how ought to write a disambiguation page and/or an article on the dictionary-defined use of the word "fanon" see http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fanon&r=67 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05785b.htm 24.85.86.112

Can I remove the part about Anakin Skywalker? If it's in an official text, like the ROTJ novelization, than that event is pure canon.

It depends on whether Lucas considers novelizations (or other literature) to be canon. I do not believe Star Wars follows the same rules as Star Trek does (on screen events are canon, that's it), but I don't know whether pre-1990s SW literature holds the same canon weight as does the books published later. 23skidoo 19:01, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure he does. Star Wars canon goes movies->official novelizations, radio dramas, etc.-> all other expanded universe novels, comics, games, etc. -> specifically non-continuity stuff. -LtNOWIS 20:12, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Novelizations of the movies are considered G-Level canon by Lucasfilms. Thats the highest canon level in regards to Star Wars.--Kross 14:19, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
That's not quite true. Lucasfilm's current canon policy is that G-canon, the highest level, is the 6 movies and anything coming directly from George Lucas (production notes, details revealed in interviews, etc). Anything in the movie novelizations and radio dramas that comes from Lucas is therefore G-canon, but anything that's added by the authors is merely C-canon (the second highest canon level, and the same as most other Expanded Universe sources). Naturally, this makes it difficult for a fan to know which novelization additions are G-canon and which are C-canon, since there are of course no footnotes. That's the purpose of the Holocron continuity database questions thread. And yes, apparently Star Wars coninuity is sufficiently complicated that keeping track of it all is a full-time job. :D Redxiv 04:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

In the section of examples about Halo, it mentions the "upcoming release of Halo 2". This needs to be replaced, since Halo 2 has been released. Ikefox 01:30, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone mind if I delete that bit about Andromeda being related to Star Trek? I'm fairly familair with the CANON of both series and they are mutually exclusive. If no one objects I'll likely remove that section in about a week.

A, if you actually want a reply to your questions, it's a good idea to place them at the end of the talk page, not on the top where no one expects to find the newest stuff. B, since "not contradicted by canon" is most definitely not part of the definition of fanon, your removal of the Andromeda section is being reverted. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, I'll put things the bottom from now on. However the Adromeda bit is simply idle speculation. It even sounds like someone was just putting his thoughts about the series on the page. I have been am a fan both series for a long time I have never heard it before. Really why shouldn't it be removed.
Well, I'm not in either fandom, so I don't know whether it's the speculation of a few fans/fanfics, or whether it's a speculation/conceit believed/employed by many fans/fanfics -- when it's the latter, of course, it's become fanon. So it may still deserve to be removed, if indeed it was just someone's own random speculation and not shared by any significant number of fans. However, several of the most notable bits of fanon exist despite being contradicted by canon, so it shouldn't be removed simply because careful attention to canon shows it to be not possible in canon. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It was added into fanon from a single article mentioning those ideas, so it may be the opinion of only one person. It can be removed from the list.

The Battlestar Galactica fanon example with Starbuck managing to get off the desert planet by salvaging a crashed Cylon warship does actually happen in the new series with the new Starbuck. Should this be mentioned on the page? Palfrey

[edit] Where'd the Fanon Examples Go?

Supposedly the examples of fanon were moved to List of fanon by series. Was this AfDed? If so, can someone point me to the archived discussion (I can't seem to locate it)? - CNichols 03:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

here it is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fanon by series --70.48.175.116 00:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fanwank - Article for Deletion

Just a brief heads-up that Fanwank has an AfD and looks likely to be deleted (I found it whilst browsing via this page).

This is not a rallying call to save the page from deletion; on the contrary, I voted to merge, not keep. However, it looks like the page is a mixture of original research (bad!) and *possibly* reputable material; it'd be a shame to see (potentially) good stuff getting thrown out with the bathwater.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to find reliable references for stuff you wish to keep, trim the fluff and merge it into the Fanon (fiction) page before Fanwank disappears. (I already added 3, and it's not even my article...) Watch out for circular references (i.e. those whose source is directly or indirectly the Wikipedia article itself).

Fourohfour 12:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure Fanon (fiction) itself is salvageable, although I'm not willing to nominate it for deletion. certainly the way we use this term on star trek articles as if it was anything other than an ill-defined neologism should stop (it gets used to describe either "popular fan theories" or to describe reference works. really, what is wrong with saying a theory is popular in fandom? why does one have to invent a new concept for this?). Morwen - Talk 11:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The AfD discussion- which everyone had the opportunity to contribute to- came to the conclusion "merge".
I'm guessing that the expression "fanwank" may be used more by the British and/or Doctor-Who fanbase. "Wank" in that context is British English, and "fanwank" was coined by a Doctor Who contributor. Nevertheless, the fact that it has 22,000 Google hits and an (apparently) clearly-defined origin is IMHO sufficient justification for noting the term in the merged article.
That having been said, there is a difference between noting use of a term amongst some fans, and actually using it- unquoted- as part of the article itself. The latter should only happen if it is in majority use.
Since the merged material from "Fanon" will probably go in a titled subsection, the question on what to use as the main title for this section ("Fanwank", "Continuity Porn", etc.) should probably reflect the most common term. Fourohfour 15:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal (as outcome from AfD)

After fanwank was nominated for deletion, the result was merge with Fanon (fiction); see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fanwank for the discussion. Fourohfour 15:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this result is really sad, as the term "fankwank" has a broader use (even here on wikipedia) than the narrow definition given in this to-be-merged article. <sigh> It's not that the article needed to be merged, it needed to be expanded. (Admittedly, yes, as it stands right now it should be arguably be a subsection of Fanon (fiction), but only if the broader sense of the term did not exist.) NB: The broader usage is something like "to excessively gush and minutiae-obsess over fannish details in an inappropriate context, or to add such detailia to documents/conversations/online forums/Wikipedia articles/etc. where they are not warranted." I see this sort of fanwanking (i.e, obsessive intellectual masturbation "ejaculations") all the time, especially at Albino bias, an article to which fanwankers seem unnaturally compelled to add pale but non-albinistic manga/anime characters, usually with text that looks like:

• Yojimbo Gumta, from the popular anime series Zeoron Chocolate Explosion XII (and the Zeoron Sea Adventure Monster Blowup TV special, and the Zeoron Chocolate Implosion Time two-issue manga series). He is a Ninja-trained blind (and becoming telepathic) soothsayer, with six-fingered hands and bearing the Amulet of Nerota-Nai, and has the power to turn small animals into lethal weapons that cause his enemies' backsides to explode, and is (though he doesn't know it; see episdode 11) the son of the alien goddess Jogira and the mutant half-human, half-robot Tsencho (who first appeared in the manga Teeth of the MotoWeasel #17, and fought the FluoroAngels of Sunlight to their defeat.) Despite Yojimbo's deformities, he is the greatest swordsman in all of Shimuku, trained by Holy Janu Matodo from the Sky City of MegaManeki. In a fateful battle with Kenjin of the Dark Flowers his hair and skin turned white from the strain of fending off the power of Kenjin's mana-sphere powers.

when, by contrast an entry like:

• Yojimbo Gumta, from Zeoron Chocolate Explosion XII, a blind albino swordsman and soothsayer.

would have done just fine [and yes, even that latter entry would have been reverted, since the (made up in this case, but I shite you not, while I may exaggerate a little here I see stuff like this all the time) character is not actually an albino, but has gone magically pale from mysterious forces.] NB: I don't mean to unduly pick on anime/manga fans here. I have seen just as wanky, blathery crap from Star War, LotR, wrestling, rock group, etc., fans too.
That is what "fanwanking" means to me, and that is how the term is used by various people I know including fanboys who use it in mock self-deprecation. But oh well. I guess the merge is a done deal.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The word 'fanwank', in my experience, has shifted in meaning. It now usually refers to 'wank' - defined by Fandom Wank as being "Self-aggrandizing posturing. Fannish absurdities. Circular ego-stroking. Endless flamewars. Pseudointellectual definitions." The FW wiki has some good examples of its new definition - http://wiki.fandomwank.com/index.php/Famous_Wanks. 87.113.90.123 14:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This is an odd result. Fanon is where fan stories reference other fan stories as if they were canonical. Fanwank is where fans obsess over (usually canonical) details. I don't see how the two concepts can be combined into a meaningful single article: they are distinct ideas, and really should be treated as such. Which means two articles, or a combined article on fan attitudes to continuity, which is much broader in scope than just these two articles, and would possibly end up merging in content from retcon as well. JulesH 09:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] giant list

I know I shouldn't, but I actually kind of miss the giant list of fanon. It's too bad none of it could be cited because it was extremely interesting. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 15:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek: Enterprise

What's wrong with Enterprise? There were a lot of people who felt this way about Enterprise originally, but the fourth season was basically "repair mode" there isn't really anything that violates the term. Can anyone actually validate this? Is it actually being used? McKay 04:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wank being Who-specific and Expand rather than merge, please

As an old-skool Whovian, I can definitely vouch for the older definition of "fanwank" being the gratuitous referencing to past episodes and events, be it within canon or fanon (the line of which is hopelessly blurred within Who fandom). The definition of "fanwank" as "fanon wars" seems much later, I only came across it on LiveJournal and especially amongst female fans. Before the new series of Doctor Who, the fanbase had very few female members, and I don't recall any of them using the term "fanwank" for "fanon war". Sadly, the term has taken hold in Fandom_Wank (another female-driven bitching and nagging forum where girls can "go and tell Momma" if someone hurts their precious feelings) and elsewhere, so that part of it should be merged with fanon. However, "Fanwank" should remain as its own page, because the definition generally is older. I think the answer can easily be found by going through Usenet archives, you'll rarely find the later definition there.

So, yeah: Keep.--Snowgrouse 21:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not even remotely the definition of Fanwank I knew

I only knew the definition of Fanwank as the newer fanwar version (especially attributed to fights that inevitably will dissolve into displays of Godwin's Law). I think this page should stay and that this definition should be part of it as well as the old definition, so as to be a fair and accurate account of what the word means now, as well as where it came from. Equally re: the comment above, as far as I'm aware most fandom_wank communities do not serve as a policing service for hurt feelings of fangirls but are instead places where current fan wanks are reported so that other fans can go and laugh at how ridiculous they are.

~~the weasel~~

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/a/n/Talk%7EFanon_%28fiction%29_a659.html"