Hub talk:Fan Fiction

"Write your own stories set in your favorite fictional worlds"...
...that's called "Fanfic", not "Fanon". While it is up to individual communities what to call themselves, the hub on Central should strive to be accurate instead of encouraging the mix-up. I propose renaming the hub "Fanfic wikis" or "Fandom wikis" (to be more generic). -Afker 19:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * For whatever reason, the name "Fanon" seems to have caught on as a synonym for "Fanfic" -- at least, on Wikia. Almost all of the wikis listed here use the name "Fanon". I agree with you that it may not be the most accurate name, but I think the communities here have made their preference pretty clear. -- Danny (talk ) 00:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to respectively disagree with the implication of your statement that the name of the hub on central should be decided by the preferences of the perceived preference of the communities. Now, I'm not proposing to rename the existing wikis against the wish of the communities, but in my humble opinion I think the hub on Central Wikia should strive for accuracy.
 * Additionally, I challenge the conjecture/claim that the "preference" are made by the community. As far as I can tell, none of the communities ever took a vote on whether they prefer their respective wikis to be known as "Fanon" vs "Fanfic".  Generalization: A few founders may have deliberately chosen "Fanon", and other founders were just sheep naming their own wikis "fanons" cuz that's what the other kids did, and the rest of the communities just followed.  No disrespect meant towards any of the communities that actually made an educated decision to prefer "fanon" over "fanfic", I'm just generalizing.  Also, a preference to not change the name set by their founder does not equal a preference to consider fanon as a better name over fanfic for their wiki.  The cost of changing a bad name to a good name may be too great, and by the time someone with initiative gets around to it, the community may have just grown used to the bad name even though they might've preferred the other name if they had a say in the very beginning when the Wiki was founded.
 * To refer to fanfic as fanon gives off an impression of either ignorance or hubris, at least to any non-Wikians who know the difference (a Wikian may be more forgiving to his fellows). Considering the hub is one of the main ways Wikia is presenting itself to the outside world (humans who are not-yet Wikians), it's probably bad marketing to give the impression of being preposterous (or ignorant).
 * Again, I'll respect the individual communities' preference on what to call themselves and what impression they want to give to others. I just think using the correct terminology for the Central Wikia hub is a tiny step in the right direction, and may help shield future founders of new wikis for fanfics from the sheep mentality.
 * My 4 cents. -Afker 09:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, those are good points, and I'm glad you brought this up. I have a few cents of my own to throw in:
 * My assumption is that founders are calling their wikis "fanon" because that's what they want them to be called. Yours is that founders are calling their wikis "fanon" because they're ignorant sheep. I think, out of respect for our Wikian colleagues, we should probably give them the benefit of the doubt.
 * A case could be made that, because the fanfic is being presented in encyclopedia form, it becomes a different thing. This isn't "fan fiction" as we typically think of it, posted in stories or chapters. Therefore, a new name may be appropriate.
 * Language changes. It's possible that what we're seeing is a new generation of fan writers -- my impression is that most of the contributors to the "fanon" wikis are in their teens. They're using a different format, and therefore, they want a different term for it.
 * If we're interested in the intentions of the founders and the future of these communities, then we should probably get some of them involved in this conversation. Do you want to ask some of the founders to check out this discussion and add their comments? -- Danny (talk )


 * To clarify, my assumption is that founders of some of the wikis chose, and founders of other wikis followed suit (could be a deliberate desire to be similar to other existing wikis, instead of being ignorant or uninformed). And even giving them the benefit of doubt, I do not think the five handfuls of founders really are representative enough of a "community preference".
 * Wikis in our science fiction hub don't write science fictions. Wikis in our Entertainment hub don't film their own movies or TV series.  Wikis in our cartoons & comics hub don't produce their own cartoons and comics.  A wiki that documents the things in various fan-made fictional universes/settings/stories fits right in with a fanfic hub.  I'm not interested in interfering with what individual existing wikis call themselves.  I'm interested in correctly characterizing them on the Central Wikia, and perhaps use it as a sign to suggest "You don't have to call that wiki you are going found a fanon wiki just because everybody else is doing it".
 * I also fear some people may have entered the world of fanfiction through the Wikia wikis, and become a "new generation of fan writers" whose language is predominantly learned through particular Wikia communities (I'm not saying all users, just some users).
 * If "fanon" and "fanfic" are synonymous in certain communities, and mean different things in other communities, then "Fanfic" sound be an acceptable term for both communities, whereas "Fanon" would only work with one community. From the marketing and diplomacy perspective, it then makes more sense to go with the Fanfic terminology to appeal to more people and pull them in.
 * I wouldn't mind if people from the existing wikis come and join this discussion, though just for clarification once more, this discussion is NOT about changing names of existing wikis. It's about what to name the hub on Central Wikia, so those wikis may be characterized correctly to "outside" visitors who would not be familiar with a new language that has caught on within a number of Wikia communities. -Afker 20:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I totally understand what you're saying. I think you've made some very good points, and personally, I'm not sure which is the right thing to do. I'd like to get some other opinions before we decide to change the hub name, and my preference would be to get some folks from these communities involved. -- Danny (talk ) 20:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've left messages on all the wikis listed in the hub, informing of the issue, presenting my point of view, and directing them here so they can see the other side of view. What I'm not sure is if I've placed the message at the best place for each of those wikis (some never use their forums, some use Talk:Main Page only for discussion directly for the main page, etc etc). -Afker 21:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I too do not know which one to decide, though I always thought a fanfic was a story and fanon was all the characters and such in the story. Also, Angela put the "fanon" title in my Wikia, it was originally simply "Fantendo", but she thought "Fantendo - Nintendo Fanon Wiki" would be more appropriate. Plumber


 * Afker notified me of this discussion. I generally think of fanfics as ficticious stories that use existing fantasy settings as a base. Fanons, then, (in my dictionary) would be fan-made creations (as opposed to creator creations, canon). Just something to think about. Not everyone thinks like I do, but that is what comes to my mind when faced with the word fanfic and fanon. --Dubtiger 13:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC), Founder of the Naruto Fanon Wikia


 * I agree with Plumber and Dubtiger. I view fanfics as a work of fiction using the fictional universe as the setting, and fanon as the individual characters, locations, etc, etc, within that work of fiction. Ajrand (Signal) 01:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC), Bureaucrat, Harry Potter Fanon Wikia


 * Just so I have an idea of where you guys' views are coming from, some questions:
 * Were you involved with fanfic writing before coming to Wikia? If so, were you part of a (or several) fanfic circles?  And were those circles already using the term "fanon" according to your interpretation?
 * If you first encountered the term "fanon" after coming to Wikia, did you look up the meaning of the word somewhere, or just observed how the word was used on Wikia and derived the meaning of the word on your own?
 * This survey data might provide some interesting case studies regarding the issue at hand. -Afker 03:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the way I use fanon is derived from [here] and [here]. Afker, were does your definition stem from? Ajrand (Signal) 20:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, the two links you cited differ with the view you described above... In both WP and UrbanDictionary, the definition has a "notability" element in it (though it may be differently worded).  Anyways, I first came across the word "fanon" on various internet fanfic sites/discussions, and the term was used to refer to stuff that are essentially "canonical among fans (but not in the official canon)".  I've started an online search for the meaning/usage of the term here, and most of them talk about "widely accepted" or "used by many writers" or "popular" etc.  -Afker 23:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a very valid point, but I just don't think a change in the hub named is warranted yet. Someday, it might be, but for now, I think that changing the name wouldn't be beneficial. Ajrand (Signal) 17:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, do you think the change of hub name would be bad? Or just lack of benefits?  Anyways, to quote the Hubs FAQ:
 * "Wikis are sometimes listed under the topic rather than the actual name of the wiki -- for example, "Scroogepedia" might be listed as "Charles Dickens Wiki". A new reader who's browsing through the hub listing might not recognize the clever name, so we try to make it easy for them to find what they're looking for."
 * By the same token, I think the hub name shouldn't be about the collective self-identities of the wikis in it, but rather it should be about maximizing the number of people who will correctly figure out what the hub is about with a first glance at the name. It's none of my business if a Orange County white pages site want to call itself the "OC Celebrepedia" (even if actual celebrities aren't listed in the white pages), and a Phoenix Arizona white pages site want to call itself "Phoenix Celebrepedia".  But to bring in new visitors and allow the people looking for these sites to find them, it should be in a hub that accurately/correctly characterizes it, like "Directories" or "White Pages", not "Celebrities". -Afker 19:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm coming around to Afker's point of view. If there are more people who would recognize the phrase "Fan fiction" rather than "Fanon", then it makes sense to rename the hub. It sounds like the folks who would prefer "fanon" would also be happy with "fan fiction", while it may not be true the other way around. I'm going to contact a few more people, and see if I can get some more opinions here. But for myself, I'm leaning towards changing it to "Fan fiction". -- Danny (talk ) 16:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Afker, what fanon (excuse me, fanfic) wikis are you active in?Riddikulus (Riddikulus!) 01:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * None, a fact which I hope would strengthen the accuracy of my characterization of the general "non-Wikia fanfic community" perspective (though technically I'm an active Wikia user, just not on any of those fandom wikis, so I might already be taking more Wikia-specific jargons for granted than I realize). -Afker 19:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you active in any non-Wikia fanon communities? Riddikulus (Riddikulus!) 17:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As a lurking reader, I use to actively follow the Kimagure Orange Road fanfics (of which the Kimagure Orange Collage probably comes the closest to fanon status), and occasionally check out some MacGyver fanfics. But since I don't write or participate in their discussions, I probably wouldn't be considered as "active in those communities" by most standards.  -Afker 20:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Afker, I don't see why you've taken up this crusade. You have little experience in this area, nor are you largely affected by it's outcome. To be blunt, no one else seems to care, so we should just leave it alone. Riddikulus (Riddikulus!) 19:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It affects me in that I am a reader of fanfics. That might not be called "experience", but there are more readers than writers on this planet.  I am not personally affected by its outcome, but the outcome affects people like me outside of Wikia, and thus I care.  Heck, I care about human rights in China and starving children in Africa even though I don't personally know anybody suffering in those places.   Apathy of the general public is not a good reason to keep the status quo, it is the "go ahead" signal for the interested parties to carry out the conclusion of their discussion/deliberation.  Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion? Right now I believe the main matter of deliberation is whether the hub naming should aim to be recognizable by the outside people not already involved in the communities here, vs to reflect the collective self-identity of the communities in the hub. -Afker 20:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Riddikulus, I agree with Afker that his personal experience in the area shouldn't determine whether we listen to his opinion. As a community space, I think it's good that we're open to evaluating ideas, no matter who they come from. Afker has expressed a clear argument that I personally find pretty convincing.

It seems like you have a different opinion about it, but I'm not sure whether you're actually opposed to the idea, or you're just irritated with seeing the discussion going on. What do you think about the fan fiction/fanon question? -- Danny (talk ) 16:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, backing down now. I apologize for the outburt. Riddikulus (Riddikulus!) 19:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, no problem! -- Danny (talk ) 20:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)