Talk:Science fiction fandom

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Science fiction fandom article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 2 years

Science Fiction Top‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Popular culture (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular culture, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Popular cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Popular cultureTemplate:WikiProject Popular culturePopular culture articles

Sociology Mid‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Improvements?

1) "faan" is not a synonym for "fan"! "Faan" fiction was a term coined to characterize fiction about fandom and fans, as opposed to SF written by fans for amateur publication.

2) I would also like to see more mention of the central role that fanzines played in original, core fandom, perhaps including a link to http://www.efanzines.com/ and Greg Pickersgill's Fanzine Bibliography http://www.gostak.demon.co.uk/mhindex.htm

3) I don't think DragonCon should be described as a convention organized by fandom. Unlike fannish conventions, DragonCon is a for-profit venture with a commercial orientation: not nearly the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs)

There have also been thesis written about fandom society and the like; also while early fandom was community based and sites like http://fandom.net (now defunk due to lack of community interest) tried to support these; the evolution of `pro-cons` should probably be discussed.

Fandom in Sweden

This section looks seriously out of place. Maybe someone could expand it and make a new article our of it? /Julle (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a stub; but it's more than we have on most countries' fandoms. We really need to do anything we can to fight the cultural biases of our coverage here. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the solution can't possibly be to try to fit in random pieces of other places of the world in an article dominated by an American perspective. It should be rewritten, perhaps. /Julle (talk) 12:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very flattered by this part of the article, but what makes Sweden more important than the fandoms in say, Hungary? Israel? Zimbabwe? Mentioning every country specifically would make it very long of a read. If I know Wikipedia, shouldn't it be made of multi-country regions such as "Fandom in Scandinavia" or "Fandom in Europe"? 78.79.16.76 (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are all separate traditions, though. Compare Jerry Määttä's Raketsommar (about Swedish fandom) and Niels Dalgaard's Fanmarkshistorien (about Danish fandom) and you'll read about two groups who ought to be presented individually. The two countries are geographically and culturally very close, the first Swedish con was pretty much within walking (or at least biking) distance from Denmark, Swedish and Danish are mutually intelligeble (especially in writing) and yet Swedish fandom was active in the 50s whereas Danish fandom pretty much started out in the 70s. /Julle (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is DFowley notable enough?

Hello. DFowley is very well known among fans of science fiction such as The X-Files, so much so that he or she has often been mentioned and discussed by the producers of that show. But DFowley has always chosen to remain anonymous, even though executive producer (and writer/director) Frank Spotnitz has recently urged DFowley to publicly identify him or her self. DFowley is (in)famous for, among other things, his or her fanfiction, which often portrays satirical versions of characters and cast and production crew members of The X-Files. Would DFowley be deemed notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia's list of science fiction fans? Thanks. Unsexything (talk) 08:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This person is possibly well-known among a small subset of media fans; but there is nothing to indicate 1) that he or she is a member of science fiction fandom; or 2) that he or she is notable as we define it here in Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for the reply and for the information.Unsexything (talk) 10:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - you can still see DFOWLEY at the The X-Files Forum - the Official Fox site. Here - http://forums.prospero.com/foxxfiles/start - I can't believe DFOWLEY doesn't have her own page on the Wikipedia! For fans she was as much a part of the show as Chris Carter or Duchovny & Anderson! :) 216.113.208.185 (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what's your point? If there is an X-Files wiki, then you're making a case (unsourced) for this person as notable internally within X-Files fandom; but that has nothing to do with notability within science fiction fandom, much less notability in the broader context of Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you missed my smilie. Wiki notability standards are so inconsistent and subjective. If it's a pet subject of some uber editor it gets a huge article complete with pictures and embedded video and is fiercely protected from mortal editors, but if it's not an uber editor's pet subject it gets deleted out of hand, even when there are many far less notable subjects with articles. But just so you don't miss it again - :-) :-) :-). 216.113.208.185 (talk) 22:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joss Whedon

Joss Whedon has an enormous fanbase which he is not only aware of but greatly appreciates and, some might say, caters to. But when I tried to add his name to the list, it was removed with the edit summary, "Joss has never been part of science fiction fandom; he has his fans, but is not a member of fandom)".

I see other authors on this list, I don't see why Whedon doesn't fit in, too. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Science fiction fandom is very different from media fandoms, in that it came into existence from the ground up, with fans contacting other fans and holding conventions, publishing fanzines, etc. with no help or input (by and large) from the publishing industry. Some of these people became pros as well; others did not, but were no less regarded with fandom for that. Some of the active fans of the earliest years later became famous as authors: but originally, people like Lee Hoffman, Julius Schwarts, Bob Tucker, Ted White and Sandra Miesel were Big Name Fans long before they became professionally published authors and/or editors; that is why they are on this list, whereas many well-known and respected authors of SF are not. Joss is known to broader SF fandom, and has a media fandom of his own, but he has never participated in the ongoing community of science fiction fandom. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Thanks for the explanation, Orange Mike. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where's fantasy?

The article talks exclusively about science fiction, but what about fantasy? Tolkien fandom is mentioned in § Offshoots and subcommunities alongside Star Trek fandom. And rightly so, as it is fully as much a part of the larger sf fandom community as the Trekkers are, even though its canon is indisputably fantasy rather than sf in the strict sense. --Thnidu (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Thnidu:, see Fantasy fandom--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 March 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the article to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Science fiction fandom → Science fiction and fantasy fandom – I doubt that fantasy fandom has a stand-alone, separate notability. It exists mixed with sci-fi fandom. I think this article should merge the tiny stub fantasy fandom here and change its name accordingly. I will also propose a similar if separate rename at Science fiction convention (I cannot propose a merge of Fantasy convention to that article, because it doesn't even exist, which helps to prove my point this is pretty much the same phenomena). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Science fiction fandom is a distinct subculture that is notable in its own right. The scope of the article should not be changed just to accommodate something else that isn't as notable. If fantasy fandom can't stand by itself then it should be deleted. —Xezbeth (talk) 10:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Xezbeth, although the Fantasy fandom page is stubby but doing well, has adequate sources and good potential, and just has to be expanded. But yes, Science Fiction and Fantasy are two different genres with slightly different fan bases and overall popular and academic interest and research. Kissing cousins, but not cohabitating. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per previous arguments, but to clarify my own viewpoint - the two are similar but distinct genres, and can easily exist without the other. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sci-fi fandom does not necessarily overlap with fantasy fandom, though the genres can merge in some cases._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename per WP:COMMONNAME. Nobody calls it "science fiction and fantasy fandom" except in the most pedantic of discussions aimed at people who don't know fandom, just as SF conventions are not called "science fiction and fantasy conventions" or "speculative fiction conventions" (again, except in rare cases where one's audience is mundanes unfamiliar with SF, its history, its customs, etc.).

However, fantasy fandom could probably become a paragraph or two within this article, since there is not really a separate "fantasy fandom" community or culture distinct from SF fandom. A weak case could be made, perhaps, for creating horror fandom as a separate article; and anime and manga fandom and comics fandom, both of whom sprang from SF fandom, have long since gone their own ways. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think a section in the fandom article could discuss the various genres of fantasy and science fiction fandom as well as others if there is a section devoted to it. But to merge them makes no sense at all. I don't agree with merging it as a paragraph. There is a link on the sci-fi fandom page that links to fantasy fandom. If this article is a stub, there is nothing wrong with that until further coverage comes up. The fact is coverage exists on this topic, so it can stay. Fantasy does have it's own fandom independent of science fiction. Many people are fantasy fans without having interest in science fiction and vice versa. I personally know a few so merging makes no sense at all.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.