Talk:Fandom

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alicep16.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Portman-no!

Removed ", who originally coined the term as a portmanteau of "fan" and "(king)dom"; the word "fan" itself originated as shorthand for "fanatic".". Seems to come from sport fandom. Will look for sources later. -- Jeandré (a Buffista who hasn't seen Buffy), 2004-09-14t21:57z

Good rewrite, 69.208 (if I may call you that for short). Rick Norwood 18:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

plural of what?

"The plural fen is often self-applied in science fiction and related fandoms." 'fen' is the plural of _what_ word? This sentence is confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.184.231 (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Fen is to fan as men is to man, or women to woman. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

fandom.com

Should there be a mention about the legal threats, circa 2000, surrounding the fandom.com website and its purported trademarking of the term?[1] Wl219 09:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

RFD Category:Worldcon Guests of Honor

Just wanted folks to be aware that the Category for Worldcon Guests of Honor has been tagged with a request for deletion. If you have an opinion pro or con, please weigh in. --JohnPomeranz 23:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Fanwank 2nd AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fanwank (2nd nomination). Likely of interest (pro or con) to editors here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Bad Article

This article does a horrible job of explaining what a fandom is, and seems to focus on the science fiction fandoms only but not on other ones. I suggest adding more and rewriting. Would do it myself, but I don't have the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.182.214 (talk) 06:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason is, anything related to fandom is usually very poorly researched by experts and the most reliable sources come from personal essays and examples from it. --Artman40 (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This is true of most minority cultures: GBLT, African-American, etc. Unfortunately, personal essays and reminiscences are not reliable sources as we define them here. Science fiction fandom in the classical sense at least has an enormous paper trail, archived in the various fanzine collections such as those in Iowa City and at Eaton; less literate fandoms don't have that advantage. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a Question

Can you have shifts in what your fandom is? (Or is it possible to have a pattern of obsession [<-- mispelled I think] and then you find a new thing that you obsess with?) This happens with me in games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.225.246 (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Notable fandoms

Why are Twihards not on this list? Their probably the largest fandom currently!!!! I think I'll add them..

Also, do you think Narniacs make the list? The Chronicles of Narnia, being a book and film series, have a very large following... Nothing like Twilight of course, but I think it's close to Doctor Who... --TaylorLane^{bore me} 17:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No, the list only includes fandoms notable enough to have their own substantiated articles. So far, neither of the categories you describe exists as a meaningful fandom (conventions, fanzines, etc.). --Orange Mike | Talk 23:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Please add "Little Monsters (fans of Lady Gaga)" to the list of notable fandoms, to correspond with mention of fandoms surrounding celebrity personalities earlier in the article. If needed, I can provide documentation of the fandom through links to fan sites, documentation of conventions/gatherings at concerts, etc. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babbobdg (talk • contribs)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Organized subculture Addition

I request that the latest addition to the Organized subculture be removed because it is not properly sourced. The the reference to the Sherlock Holmes bit does not actually reference any sort of organized fandom and the railway enthusiast statement is not sourced at all. Aside from those actual technical issue I personally wish that my work be removed from this article. If those watching over it feel a need to play mother hen then it is not a page where I want to be involved with. If you feel the information belongs then by all means re-write it in a way that fits the context of the existing article. That I am even being forced to make this request on the talk page is demeaning and an example of why Wikipedia is trouble finding new editors.Sturmovik (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

"Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used and redistributed by other people at will." That's an irrevocable license. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Relationship with industry

This bit here needs to be rewritten to include more realistic relationships. Fan activism is pretty big and has demonstrated its power to influence producers, but, for many years, fans were perceived as little more than annoyances. I think something should be added to reflect that, and give a more nuanced overview of fan-industry relations. I'll develop something over the next week or so and add it then; if you have any suggestions, do let me know! Juniper4589 (talk) 09:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge with Fan

I don't agree this should be merged, a Fan is a person who enjoys something to a point, a fandom is almost a obsession to near religion. I don't think for that reason alone it should stay two separate entries. Loper324 (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's entirely fair. However: one can be a fan of something in splendid isolation; but a fandom exists in some sense as a collective entity, with some level of interaction among the members thereof. It need not be as extensive and as old as science fiction fandom; but it's more than an individual sitting in his/her room obsessing about IT, whatever IT may be for them. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I also am opposed to merging and agree with Orangemike. A fandom is a subculture of fans, but not all fans participate in (or are even aware of) the fandom.--Duesouthfan (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

So how do we continue this? Do we just remove it or do we wait for more people? Loper324 (talk) 07:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with removing it. I see no support for the merge here. Jclemens (talk) 08:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Fan Culture

I would like to see this definition added to the fandom article, as there is no page or definition for fan culture. The listing is referred back to fandom.

Fan culture is the behavior and practices exhibited by a group of people, a community, with an affinity or admiration for a common activity, show, person, or product. In today’s society, these cultures often have their own language, music, art, and literature, and fashion attire (Gooch, ND).

Sjcord (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

would like to see articles

I would like to see articles called "Star Wars fandom" and "Fantasy fandom". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.228.108.183 (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Star Wars fandom is so inchoate and fragmented that I am not sure you could write a solid article about it, compared to Star Trek fandom's documented history, or the shorter, but documented, history of Browncoats. You're welcome, of course, to try.

There is no organized fantasy fandom per se: from its beginning, "science fiction" fandom has been deeply interested in fantasy literature; in early years, the word "fantasy" or the phrase "science fantasy" was often used to encompass both varieties of speculative fiction, and to this day many of the very oldest fannish institutions, such as the Fantasy Amateur Press Association, the National Fantasy Fan Federation and the Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society, have the word "fantasy" in their titles, without bothering to add "and science fiction", since that was understood. Tolkien fandom, to name the only really notable example of a fantasy fandom, arose in the pages of science fiction fanzines long before the Tolkien boom of the 1960s; and many people drift across, or deny the existence of, any purported boundary between Tolkien fandom and ordinary SF fandom. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 March 2013

List of notable fandoms edited to include "Supernaturalists" - fans of the cult TV show Supernatural." 5.61.195.186 (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

 Not done There is no such article, since there is no large or coherent body of Supernatural fans (nor does its fandom meet the standards of intensity which lead to a fandom being tagged "cult"). --Orange Mike | Talk 03:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I have a list of fandoms wich names.

One Direction/Directioners Lady Gaga/Little Monsters Ke$ha/Animals Little Mix/Little Mixers Justin Bieber/Beliebers Katy Perry/Katy Cats Cher Lloyd/Brats Ariana Grande/Arianators Demi Lovato/Lovatic Miley Cyrus/Smilers Avril Lavigne/Little Blackstar Adele/Daydreamers Big Time Rush/Rusher Austin Mahone/Mahonies Nicki Minaj/Barbz Selena Gomez/Selenators Rihanna/Rihanna navy Taylor Swift/Swiftie Jonoskians/Janoskianators — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.183.188 (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 June 2013

Please add Directioners as One Direction fans, Mixers as Little Mix fans, Smilers as Miley Cyrus Fans, J-Cats as Union J fans and Lovatics as Demi Lovato fans. Thanks.DedicatedDirectionerxox (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC) DedicatedDirectionerxox (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done: The fan groups listed in this article are supported either by stand-alone articles discussing the fandom, or sections of the artist's articles devoted to their fan base. None of the fan groups you list are notable enough to warrant their own article or section. Please provide reliable sources and include them in the appropriate article, then their inclusion can be considered here. --ElHef (Meep?) 18:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 June 2013

Fan activities; Pimp posting, a pimp post allows fans to promote their like /interest to others.

Kaffegeek (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done: That article has been nominated for deletion under multiple criteria within Wikipedia's deletion policy. You'll need to show its notability and provide reliable sources to support the information you would like added to Wikipedia in order for it to be included in the encyclopedia. --ElHef (Meep?) 19:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 August 2013

Please add more fandoms to the notable seciton. Examples are Tributes (Hunger Games), Transfers (Divergent), Shadowhunters (The Mortal Instruents) and Twihards (Twilight) Jackcr27 (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done and will not be done None of those groups (some of which only exist as nicknames) are notable enough to have articles about them in an encyclopedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2013

Blockheads (fans of boy band New Kids on the Block) Backstreet Army (fans of boy band Backstreet Boys) Boybandfan (talk) 17:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done and will not be done As explained one item above this one, neither of these ephemeral phenomena has become noteworthy enough to have an article about it, and until and unless that changes, they will not be added to the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Media fandom

Unlike the articles on production or medium-specific fandom, I believe Media fandom is too general a term for a content fork and too much mirrors what one finds at Fandom. I believe a merge to a single general article would aid readers and the target article would not be too long, with unduplicated content added. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2014

One new fandom that should be added as a prominent fandom is Clone Club (fans of Orphan Black). This fandom is new and fiercely in love with its respective show, and the main reason why it is not represented is because it is relatively new, as the show just premiered a year ago. For more information, please visit http://thecloneclub.tumblr.com/ to see exactly what the fandom is up to and the 450+ pages of content submitted. I hope you will see their significance in the fandom world. 98.237.191.71 (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 07:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2014

Notable Fandom addition. Xenites- Fans of "Xena: Warrior Princess" the author of this article uses the term in the last paragraph. I hope this is a good enough source! http://www.salon.com/1997/08/03/xena/ Jimzle84 (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: As explained above: fandom needs stand-alone article to be added to this article. Sam Sailor ^Sing 16:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Juggalos?

I don't like ICP, but they have a pretty big fan base — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.112.42.23 (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2014

Fandom does not mean fanatic + kingdom. Fandom is a combination of the two words fanatic domain, as to say a place for fans. 99eve99fab (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done: unsourced. Also, it doesn't say fanatic + kingdom. It explains it as a combination of fan and the suffix dom. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2015

remove "fimfiction" under media of fandoms. fimfiction does not exist. most probably an error. Ima-treepotato (talk) 00:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 01:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fandom. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111202084823/http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-15383489.html to http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-15383489.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2015

an you please change the word origin from Fanatic Kingdom to Fanatic Domain. Domain is correct. thank you Ali i Weather (talk) 10:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

No, that would be false. -dom in this sense, signifying those having a (specified) office, occupation, interest, or character in common, (e.g., "officialdom"), comes from Middle English, from the Old English -dōm. It is akin to Old High German -tuom or -dom and Old English dōm, meaning "judgment". --Orange Mike | Talk 12:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The Article

I think this article does a good job overall explaining what a fandom is, but it could use more examples. Like the psychological effects or reasons they exist. More of an analysis if you will. Also more on the impact on the media and how people react to their fanbases and why that is. How much do directors or writers depend on them?

I found this article to be very interesting: and this one: (note don't pay attention to the tumblur link I'm not sure why that's there.)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2015

Add a Section: Media Theory and Fandom

With the rise of the Internet and Internet fandom, media is bound to have a more active audience. The direct effects theory, “in which a (media) stimulus is followed by a straightforward (audience) response, to theories of active audiences that use media to satisfy particular needs and enable the flow of media communications from person to person” contributes to the way which people today consume media. The active audience theory claims that the audience doesn’t simply consume media passively, but are either consciously or unconsciously involved in making sense of the media within their own personal or social contexts. Media has been proven to have a strong effect, either positive or negative, on its audience. Viewers and consumers actively seek to relate to the media, drawing parallels between their selves and their favorite characters or band members.

With fandom, audiences are exposed to a group of people who identify just as strongly with a piece of media as they do. These people will spend hours analyzing the subtleties and nuances of things as simple as a tilt of someone’s head, or an inflection in someone’s speech. Websites such as tumblr, livejournal, twitter, and Facebook connect fans around the world, expanding the global village through which you can examine and enjoy television shows. Before Internet, fans were limited to local or write-in fan clubs, and the discussion of media amongst their immediate circle of friends, many of which may not have shared the same interest (or level of interest) as you.

Social media has also paved the way to a more active, engaged audience in the sense that we don’t consume media in a vacuum. Influential television shows and movies use their platform to speak out on world issues, a message that may not be heard by some who choose not to watch news programs. In addition, through social media platforms such as Twitter, viewers and consumers can actively interact with content creators such as movie producers and television writers. Audiences are able to converse with these previously untouchable creators, voicing their appreciation (or disdain) for a particular story line, inquiring about certain production choices that were made (be it a lingering camera shot, or a particular way a line was phrased), as well as hold creators accountable for any glaring mistakes. Fandoms by definition are full of dedicated fans, and they take any opportunity they can to bring up continuity errors and translation errors (when dealing with book to movie adaptations) to creators, which in turn is making writers more careful with timelines and the way a show or movie is presented. In that respect, one could say that fandom is improving the media landscape, as producers are now so much more cautious about continuity or production faux pas, which would have previously gone unnoticed by a more passive audience.

Television shows, and online fandoms spark an almost academic-like interest in shows. It doesn’t take too much searching to find thesis-length pieces on why racial representation in a particular show is lacking, or how you can code a movie’s two main characters as bisexual. People have done university dissertations on how Sherlock Holmes is gay, and Katniss Everdeen is asexual, and this passion and desire to deeply explore one’s favorite media content is sparked by fandom; a group of people who you can turn to for advice, fact-checks, and who you can depend on to tell you that no, you’re not in fact crazy for caring so much about fictional characters. This new age of engaged and active audience has spurned an era of “’aca-fans,’ a hybrid creature which is part fan and part academic.”. With fandoms giving people the opportunity to connect with people who share their interests and grow their passion, you’re getting a generation of fans who no longer passively consume media, making the relationship between show runner and viewer a tumultuous one.

Fans and fandoms shouldn’t be seen as antisocial people on the fringes of society, but instead as “highly creative communities who ‘poach’ the programs they like through fanzines, conventions, and fan fiction” ). Fanfiction is a way in which the audience gets to bring to life certain aspects of a television show or movie that they aren’t usually given. You can imagine your “OTP” (one true pairing) as mafia leaders, undercover spies, baristas, or anything else you can think of. Fanfiction gives fans the opportunity to delve deeper than the mass media production ever would; writing entire character backstories and family lineages that would never make it to the screen, and even bring their favorite characters back from the dead.

Bayley Dathorne 14:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now: Hello, thanks for this request! There are a couple of issues I see for now, so I haven't added the material yet. First, you need to provide page numbers for the quotes. Second, the tone is currently not neutral. It's not good to use Wikipedia's voice to say a normative statement like "fandoms should be seen as antisocial"; you could instead say something like, "Mill, Brett, and Barlow have argued that fandoms shouldn't be seen as antisocial." Finally, the second and third paragraphs are unreferenced. I can add the rest of the material while leaving those paragraphs out, but if you want to add those there should be references. Thanks again for the submission, I think adding a media theory perspective to this article would be beneficial, we just need to make those tweaks before I add it. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request - fandom studies

For: under fan activities Fandoms also influence and create scholarly discourse. One such example is the literature and scholarly work surrounding the TV series Buffy the Vampire Slayer, called by fans Buffy studies. Academic papers are collected in Slayage, a fan-generated, peer-reviewed online journal published quarterly. Several books have been written about the television series and the ensuing fandoms in popular culture, including Why Buffy Matters: The Art of Buffy the Vampire Slayer by Rhonda Wilcox. In writing about how there is continued scholarship and work about the show, Wilcox writes “some publishing companies fear that interest will die now that the series is ended. I think that highly unlikely. People are still talking about Shakespeare and Dickens.” Portland State University offered a class in spring 2012 titled “Exploring Buffy the Vampire Slayer.”

Anadeja (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Fandom studies, like the one for Buffy, are important to understanding how fandom is perceived and used in modern day culture and media studies. Buffy is an easy one to find, because of the body of work surrounding it, but others could be found as well. Anadeja (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You are now eligible to edit this article. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Nakon 01:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request - literature studies

Along with film and television, literary fandoms are notable for dedicated fan bases and many novels are source material for films and television series. Studies on literary fandoms are incomplete as most literary fandom critique falls under literary theory and “fan studies have ... eroded the boundaries between audiences and scholars, between fan and scholar more than any other field.” In some cases, studying of fandoms and fan culture have called into question interpretations of the original text, and “studies of fan audiences have challenged the idea of the ‘correct’ or even dominant readings." Thus literary fandoms have enhanced and challenged traditional ideas of a source text and studies of fandoms from certain books can reinterpret the author’s original meaning.

Some literary fandoms include authors Stephen King, who has numerous works made into films with strong fan followings, J.K. Rowling and the Harry Potter series, Stephanie Meyer and the Twilight phenomenon, as well as classic literature authors Jane Austen, whose fans call themselves Janeites, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, whose Sherlock Holmes has spawned many adaptations. Literary fandoms can also overlap with television fandoms such as the show Game of Thrones based on George RR Martin’s work. Literary fandoms are a significant subculture engaging in many fan activities listed below.

ScarfTooFluffy (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Amortias (T)(C) 22:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request - Buffy fandom

According to scholar Henry Jenkins, fandoms are a culture “in which people are bound together by a wide range of desires and expressed through an equally wide range of practices." One notable fandom is the Buffy The Vampire Slayer fandom, commonly referred to as the Buffistas. The Buffistas--in addition to creating fan films, books, fanzines, and other various media are in part the reason why Buffy The Vampire Slayer has become such a popular culture icon. The fans have dubbed the universe that Buffy takes place in the Buffyverse or Slayerverse, and use this term to refer to the universe where any and all creations take place.

Many celebrities and artists have cited Buffy the Vampire Slayer as their inspiration for some or all of their creations. Singer and songwriter Ed Sheeran noted that he watches the show frequently, and calls “some of the soundtrack…brilliant." Shonda Rhimes, writer and producer for shows such as Grey's Anatomy and Scandal, also noted the importance of Buffy in her development as a writer. Rhimes was quoted saying “I was very inspired by Buffy, mainly because it felt very fresh and new and like something that hadn't been on television before”.

Apologies, copied and pasted the wrong text from my doc. Ekirb93 (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Generally, you need to create the article Buffy fandom first. If you've got the article together, and it's been accepted as a valid topic, then Buffy fandom could be added to this article. Whedonista example: look at the edit history of Browncoats. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2016

Needs more fandom pictures.

GotteIsTooSimilarToTheFollowingUsername (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Datbubblegumdoe^{[talk – contribs]} 22:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2016

I think one more fandom to add on this list is Roswell from the hit TV show Roswell. It's Fandom is legendary considering back in 2001 fans from all over the world sent in Tabasco bottles to save the show, and it got a third season. They are called "Roswellians" . In fact the Fandom is alive and well and trying to campaign now for its Spiritual Successor Baron + Toluca. It should be added immediately.

9loveletters9 (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Please make sure that information added to Wikipedia does not constitute original research or speculation. Additions need to be backed by reliable sources. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 15:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fandom. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725022644/http://a-kon.com/bm/bm~doc/prelim_history.pdf to http://a-kon.com/bm/bm~doc/prelim_history.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.hypable.com/glee/2011/07/27/glee-producer-and-writer-discuss-the-shows-fandom/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Conise list of all fandoms

I think there should be a separate article made with a list of all known fandoms (which should grow over time). The fandom nicknames list is unsuited to this task because some fandoms such as furries don't fit into that list because it is categorized by media (i.e. anthropomorphism, which is a concept rather than a media). For this reason, a separate list should be made for all concepts and types, if possible. CyanGuy512 (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I question that it would be feasible to do this. Pretty well every TV series ever made had or had some fans who, to some extent, interact/ed with each other and could be described as a discrete fandom. So to does/did many authors (the activities of modern Jane Austen fans occasionally make the news in the UK). So too did/does every identifiable genre of fiction. Some of these fandoms will have been very limited and ephemeral, others widespread and persistent, and there will be every graduation in between. Where does one draw the lines? Research to determine the level of fanac for every one of them would be an immense task. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.203.118.169 (talk) 12:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Based on my own familiarity with fan websites, fan fiction, and fan art, there are still fans of relatively obscure television shows. ThunderCats (1985 TV series) has multiple dedicated websites, the Care Bears still have fans, there is fan art for The Get Along Gang, and Alex Toth fans still like his work in animation.

Several old films and film franchises have fandoms of their own. As for writers with fandoms, the likes of Lewis Carroll, Bram Stoker, J. R. R. Tolkien, Robert E. Howard, H. P. Lovecraft, and Agatha Christie have dedicated fans in and out of the Internet. There are websites and essays about the works of Edward Plunkett, 18th Baron of Dunsany. Dimadick (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

furries. 🐺RooWritten🐺 _TALK 19:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit request, try to avoid saying "Recent"

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia and this implies a certain style of writing. Vague time words such as "recent" "current" "now" should be avoided, and if necessary times and dates should be specified instead. Recent in a geological sense is very different from recent pop culture and it is best to avoid the word entirely. This is generally good writing, but is also part of the Wikipedia style guide and rules on Relative Time. This article includes a not very nice example:

 Gaming fans have also recently made a big impact on content developers. In March 2012, when the most recent ...

The repeating of recent twice in the space of two sentences is not good writing either, even ignoring WP:RELTIME. I propose:

 Gaming fans have also influenced content developers. In March 2012, when Bioware: Mass effect was released ...

as a change the existing text. -- 109.77.213.69 (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2017

Please change several instances of "Spiderman" and even [gasp!] the far worse, lowercased "spiderman" to the correct "Spider-Man" Quenbie (talk) 02:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Done JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fandom. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070205171312/http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/12/13/fandom/ to http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/12/13/fandom/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 18:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2019

Fandom community central block please help make it unblock please fix it now thank you 2601:240:E480:6F66:35FB:7AFF:3E27:E373 (talk) 05:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: This is not an edit request. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Grateful Dead (Deadheads) and Phish (Phishheads)

The Grateful Dead had a huge following, with a highly developed culture that continued for decades. Please consider them for inclusion in the list. See: Deadhead. LionKimbro (talk) 01:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Fandom toxicity: disloyalty and cult culture

Some information regarding disloyalty and toxicity should be included as well as information regarding the cult like culture of fandom should be emphasized. Fans preference for one franchise supercedes and bleeds into their hatred of other better franchises that may impact on their prefered franchise. Also fan disloyalty whereby fans think they can take control of a franchise from the creator because they don't agree with the creators ideas or sentiments of any kind Fan toxicity is a notable topic and theirs enough references and sources to cite from . Please include if possible Hpdh4 00:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4 (talk • contribs)

Images

The images don't seem balanced -- there are three cosplayers, one furry cartoon and one (badly photographed) piece of fan art. While cosplay is probably overrepresented in photographs, most fannish time is not spent cosplaying. Could at least one of the cosplayers be swapped for something else? There are non-cosplay images in fan club, fanzine, science fiction fandom, Harry Potter fandom, Doctor Who fandom and probably elsewhere. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2021

I want to add a section on Fandom websites. Like how there are fandoms about animals. Not specifically those ones, but just explain that there are websites under the title of Fandom. I don't have my changes specifically with me, so I'm just saying what I want added. This isn't the actual edit I want. I think that part of Fandoms is important. Frogggy100 (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. We need the exact edits you'd like to have made, with sources if you'd like to use the requested edit template. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2023

Add Swifties to the list of notable fandoms. Kallrostinnan (talk) 09:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You'll need to provide independent secondary sourcing discussing this to demonstrate that it merits inclusion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

No Werther?

Not a single mention of Goethe's The Sorrows of Young Werther, which spawned the first instance of the modern literary fandom? Aside from one of the very first fashion- and mass-merchandising crazes associated with a work of literature, It actually led to several copycat suicides in imitation of the protagonist, who became the archetype of the doomed romantic hero, whose influence is still to be seen in Goth and emo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sorrows_of_Young_Werther#Cultural_impact

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_suicide#History

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10410236.2023.2211363

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/werther-effect

Mpaniello (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

"Swifties" is an important addition on Notable list

The Swifties, aside from being a strong example of what a fandom is, have been involved in important conversations, like pushing the 2019 master recordings controversy (as well as the addition to pushing the numbers involving the 2021 and 2023 rereleases of these albums), the 2022-2023 Ticketmaster investigation, creation of laws (most notably the 2023 "Taylor Swift Law" against scampers in Brazil) and revival of past releases, including 2019 Cruel Summer and rerelease of 2013 All Too Well topping the Billboard Hot 100 years after their release.
That goes without saying that Swift herself is the first Time Person of the Year recognized by her achievements in the arts, has the best selling tour of all time, as well as the most-awarded country album of all time, Billboard's first Woman of the Decade, American Music Awards 2010s Artist of the Decade and the first woman to win 2 and, now, 3 AOTYs at the Grammys. Can you please put this fandom at the list? RyzeHope (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I am including examples of music fandom in the article and I wrote a section on the Swifties. Thampson02 (talk) 05:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: College Composition II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 11 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shapir13 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Lindseybean28 (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Women and Music

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TrevorHampson02 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Tuanonigator.

— Assignment last updated by ProfG-P (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Sports fans?

Surely there at least needs to be a link to a page that deals with sports fans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240F:CA:2CE5:1:B850:1B61:3A7B:58AC (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)