Talk:Fanwank

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Bronze Age? 2 ... in under 12 parsecs. 3 Original research? 4 Ring-Wraiths 5 No-Prize 6 Are canon and fanwank mutually exclusive? 7 "unreferenced" tag 8 Examples of fanwanking 8.1 Comic books 8.2 Television 8.3 Movies 8.4 Books 9 Completely wrong? 10 The Term 11 Niven not fanwanking 12 The Klingons on Enterprise 13 Articles for Deletion: Conclusion was "merge"

[edit] Bronze Age?

From the page: The Bronze Age Lois Lane was perfectly aware.... I can't tell if this was supposed to be Golden Age or Silver Age. I'm pretty sure there wasn't a Bronze Age of Comics, any more than there was an Iron Age or a Stone Age... grendel|khan 16:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The Bronze Age is a fan neologism, that has no clear definition. The idea is to distinguish the more innocent Golden and Silver Ages from the more modern, more "realistic" stories that surfaced in the late 60s up to the next major division in DC Universe history, the Crisis on Infinite Earths in 1985-86. In the context of Superman, some fans place its beginnings in 1971, when Denny O'Neill revamped Superman to depower him (Superman #233) slightly and make Clark Kent a TV reporter instead of a newspaper one to make the character a bit more with the times. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ... in under 12 parsecs.

I have taken this to mean that the race "track" is 12 parsecs long (or more) and that, because of good manuevering, the Falcon was able to finish in less. Compare to a NASCAR race. A driver who manages to keep to the inner edge of the track the whole time is going to be traveling less distance than any other drivers. Perhaps his lead was significant enough that a measure of distance is more awing than one of time. Conversely, maybe he didn't win by a great lead (perhaps he would have told us he won ?) but he still accomplished this feat of coming in under 12 pc (as did others).--Dustin Asby 22:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

you're completely wrong. But don't worry, I fixed it. --86.135.179.53 20:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Original research?

I've got some doubts about the notability of this term with this definition. Google search gives only 900 hits, with this article at #5, preceded by 4 articles that use "fanwank" with a different definition (there, the meaning is similar to fan service). I'm tempted to go AfD on this one, and merge to fanon, fan service, Krypto-revisionism, retcon, etc. Any thoughts? Staecker 14:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The article does mention the definition you're referring to ("Another meaning of fanwanking is the inclusion of elements irrelevant to plot or characterization in one work in an attempt to amuse fans of a genre. This sense of the word is synonymous with fan service.") I will say that's the definition I'm familiar with (coming from Doctor Who fandom). In fact, I've heard claims that the word "fanwank" was invented by Doctor Who novelist Craig Hinton, who admits that his own works are full of fanwankery.

I believe the two terms (fanwank and fan service) developed independently to describe similar phenomena in media with heavy overlap between the fan and creator communities. It should probably be noted that the "fan service" meaning of "fanwank" can include the "explaining continuity errors" meaning. For example, many episodes of the fourth season of Star Trek: Enterprise had plots which centered around explaining discontinuities between various periods of Star Trek: the most notable example is the explanation in the episodes Affliction and Divergence of why the Klingons in the original Star Trek didn't have bumps on their heads, but all other Klingons seen since, both earlier and later in Star Trek history, did. This is obviously something that is included primarily to appeal to Star Trek fans, but the nature of the appeal is in explaining an unanswered continuity question.

I wouldn't support an AfD or merge, but I would support a partial rewrite to the larger definition, preferably with specific examples of fan-pleasing elements referred to as fanwank in reliable sources, such as the unofficial episode guides published by Virgin Books or notable fan publications. I'm sure that the term has been used in print enough that a non-original-research article could be created. That will take a bit of work, but that's what we're here for, isn't it? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it's actually Craig *himself* who claims to have invented the term on internet newsgroups in around 1993, although as these claims mostly seem to have been made on the OG forums I don't know how good that is as a source for a Wikipedia article. Angmering 18:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I just did a quick search on Google Groups for the earliest use of the term on usenet, and the earliest that made it into the archive is this post by EGA91BJW dated Tues, Jun 13 1995 12:00 am, posted in rec.arts.drwho.

The earliest usenet use of the term outside rec.arts.drwho was this post by R J Smith dated Thurs, Dec 14 1995 12:00 am in rec.arts.sf.tv.quantum-leap. R J Smith was a regular poster on rec.arts.drwho, so it's probably safe to say that the earliest recorded use of the term was on radw unless someone can point to an earlier use in print.

Is any of this worth adding into the article? Bouncelot 09:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great! Maybe this info about the term's origins should be in the article. It says that fanwanking came to prominence with Doctor Who, but there's no statement that the neologism developed any time before the authorship of this article (which is what concerned me). Thanks for clearing that up. Staecker 22:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

As it is a neologism, "fanwank" might be interpreted to mean a wide range of things which are encompassed by the definition of "an act of self-gratification by a fan or fandom". It's very much a slang term and would be considered derogatory in many situations. Fanwanking might encompass a number of things, including pet theories (Giovanni is Ash's dad in Pokemon), fan-invented refutations of established canon (denying that a favourite character dies), self-insertion fanfiction, implications of romance between characters (often of the same gender), and so forth. The difference between fanwanking and concepts like fanon are that fanon typically make sense and are often widely-accepted (sometimes becoming official canon), while fanwankery is merely self-gratifying. Thus it's fanwankery to say that Ash is having a gay relationship with Brock, but fanon to say that Giovanni is his dad (because he totally is :D ). --Jonathan Drain 19:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ring-Wraiths

As I recall it, it was also explained (within canon) that at Weathertop the Wraiths fell back because they had achieved their two main aims: to induce the Ringbearer to don the Ring (thus giving Sauran a "triangulation" on it) and wounding him with the Morgul-knife, which would inevitably sap his strength, making him their slave. They would thus not only regain the Ring through the Bearer relinquishing it when Sauron required, but would also gain a slave within the ranks of the Free Races (since it was a fair assumption that they would not slaughter him out of hand).
The plot foundered only because it proved possible to get Frodo to Rivendell before his spirit was consumed and turned to Dark. --Simon Cursitor 10:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Another theory I have heard (although I cannot provide a source) is that the Ringwraiths became more and more powerful asthey neared Mordor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.28.235.211 (talk • contribs) on 01:47, 22 February 2006.

Again as I recall it (not having Vol.3 and Unfinished Tales to hand), the Wraiths were under orders initially to go covertly and to "shroud" their true power. They were "disrupted" (for want of a more precise term) at the Fords, and when Sauron released them again, mounted on the flying creaturs, he authorised them to use their full force. -- Simon Cursitor 09:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No-Prize

I can't believe this article doesn't link to the entry on Marvel Comics' No-Prize, which should be noted as the first editorial recognition of what would come to be known as fanwankery, going back to the 1960's.

Agreed. I was surprised to see the more recent term "fanwankery," which I've understood to be a derogatory term describing activity engaged in by flame warriors and overly sensitive fans with too much time on their hands, defined almost synonymously with No Prize-ing, which despite never being a comics fan, I've always understood to be an honorable and often necessary activity engaged in by any intellectually active fan who cares about their 'verse. Ah, the joys of superiority. ;-) Have added the link to the No-Prize page, though the latter is rather sparse.--Bedawyn 03:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are canon and fanwank mutually exclusive?

An editor recently removed the Star Wars parsec example, saying "the Star Wars example is canon and not fanwank". Does the one necessarily exclude the other? The article notes that fanwank is usually created by the audience of a work rather than its authors, but in many cases there's overlap between the two. Certainly that was the case for the Doctor Who licensed fiction in reference to which Craig Hinton first used the term: most of the authors of the Virgin New Adventures were both professional writers creating licensed/authorized Doctor Who and fans of the television programme, which is why some of them wrote books which were full of references to past adventures. (Hinton himself wrote an entire novel explaining why, in The Dalek Invasion of Earth, the Daleks were trying to remove the magnetic core of the Earth, which would appear on the face of it to be a daft thing to do. His explanation involved the Ice Warriors and the Osirians.)

Now, what is and isn't canon in Doctor Who is debatable, just about the polar opposite of Star Wars' elaborate and detailed canon structure. But there are other examples of elaborate explanations for continuity oddities which have been made as part of an official canon, but were written by and for fans. The Star Trek: Enterprise episodes explaining Klingon foreheads spring to mind — according to Paramount, they're canon, but aren't they fanwank as well? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

May I also suggest that, in several cases, what has been fanwankery, filling in accepted gaps in canon continuity, has later been absorbed into canon, without explicit attribution, thus in effect retconning fanon into canon. -- Simon Cursitor 12:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the Star Wars example, and have added a bit to the intro about how when fans come to write for a series, their fanwanky explanations for past errors or anomalies can become canon. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

"Fans come to write for a series"? Explain yourself. - Sikon 05:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What Josiah is referring to is that many of the writers for the current series of Doctor Who were well known fans of the series before they started writing for the show, and in addition, many of them wrote fanfiction and/or licensed fiction, little asides to which have made it into the television show.

As to the general question of whether canon excludes fanwankery, my answer is no. Just because it's canon doesn't mean it can't be fanwank of the highest order - case in point, Star Trek: Enterprise. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Similarly it is becoming an increasing phenomenon to find US series with episodes originated (even if not teleplayed) by known fan-writers whom production teams have "taken on board". -- Simon Cursitor 08:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I was actually thinking more of Enterprise than of the new Doctor Who — although the writers of the current Doctor Who are fans almost to a man, they were quite restrained in bringing in fanwank. (The only fanwank/fanon that I can think of in the first series is the explanation for why it seems like everyone in the universe speaks English — they don't, the companions just hear English because the TARDIS translates for them. This was a widespread fanon notion found in the New Adventures novels, and became canon in The End of the World. But I digress... [™ & © Peter David ])

Respectfully (and from memory) the canon Masque of Mandragora establishes the "How come I always *hear* English". Deosn't it ? -- 08:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, all the Doctor says in Masque is that it's a "Time Lord gift, which I allow you to share." It was fan notion that it had to do with the TARDIS itself, that made it into the NAs and then into the television series. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope that Khaosworks and Simoncursitor have assuaged Sikon's confusion. This is what I'd added to the intro section on the subject:

However, when fans of a shared universe themselves come to write for it, they may include fanwanky or fanon explanations in their own contributions, thus making them canon: one notable example is the explanation provided in the fourth season of Star Trek: Enterprise for the difference in appearance between Klingons in the original Star Trek and subsequent spin-offs.

But if that's not clear, please "edit mercilessly" so that it is. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "unreferenced" tag

I don't necessarily disagree with the addition of this tag, but I'm at a bit of a loss as to how exactly this concept could be referenced. I suppose a citation of Hinton's first use of the term (was it in Doctor Who Magazine?) would be useful, but it's not like there are scholarly works on the subject. You might be able to find some references to the term in some media studies essay somewhere, but that probably wouldn't exactly be a reference for anything in the article... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just added a reference for the source of the Ringworld stuff. Basically any fact presented should ideally have a reference (unless it's really basic). ··gracefool |☺ 16:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Examples of fanwanking

Please do not re-insert any of these until you can provide a verifiable citation from a reliable source which identifies them specifically and by name as fanwanking. While you're at it you might care to provide a source for the term itself. Just zis Guy you know? 22:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment: This has, in effect, resulted in an article which describes something it then cannot exemplify. Either we need a sub-article "Alleged Examples of f~", pending citations, or the entire matter needs to be recursively linked -- that is that the concept of "fanwank" is itself defined as an example of "fanwank", because it simply represents fans trying to popularise their own inane theorisings (the Wiki-ins-not-original-research writ larger) -- Simon Cursitor 07:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm interested to see that the comics/Franklin Richards tale surface here. Any word on what the sources were? I posted it to USENET myself, some years ago [1], but I'd be interested to know where/when else it's appeared. Mrph 19:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comic books

• In the 1960s, Marvel Comics encouraged readers to send in explanations of apparent mistakes to their comics' letter pages. Stan Lee would award fans a "No-Prize" for clever explanations or justifications. This may be the first example of officially sanctioned and published fanwankery.
• In pre-Crisis continuity, Superman was able to maintain his secret identity (despite his objectively meager disguise) because he was subconsciously using his quasi-telepathic power of super-hypnosis to cause anyone who saw him wearing glasses to see him as thinner and frailer than he actually was. As he only sent this impression to those he was deliberately keeping the secret from, anyone he revealed his double identity to would be freed from the hypnotic compulsion. (Since this explanation was suggested by a fan but eventually published (thus making it canon), it is both a fanwank and a retcon.)
• The Bronze Age Lois Lane was perfectly aware of Superman's true identity, and Superman suspected that she knew the truth; she kept the truth to herself both because she preferred to wait for him to trust her enough to tell her, and because she knew her life might be endangered if it were thought she knew his secret identity. (Note that this fanwank contradicts the one above.)
• The post-Crisis Wonder Woman's vulnerability to bullets, when she is otherwise nearly as durable as Superman, is either an inevitable result of the magic spell used to empower her (the theory being that all magic has a drawback) or was deliberately engineered to keep her from becoming careless because she perceived herself as invulnerable. Similarly, Thor's vulnerability to bullets was deliberately caused by his father Odin to keep the thunder god from being too arrogant.
• The super-heroes and supporting casts in the Marvel universe are kept perpetually young because Franklin Richards, the nigh-omnipotent son of Reed and Susan Richards, does not wish to grow up. Subconsciously, he has kept himself from reaching puberty and his family and their friends from growing older. Because the Fantastic Four are so prominent in the super-hero community, many other persons have benefited from his influence. Franklin also prevents anyone from realizing what he is doing. If Franklin undergoes a traumatic experience, he may de-age himself further (explaining why some artist draw him as nearly teenage, others as a first or second grader). Because his control is imperfect, some characters, such as Kitty Pryde and the Power siblings experience odd aging spurts that cannot be reconciled with the passage of time everyone else has experienced (or not experienced).
• Similarly, in the DC Universe, either Bat-Mite or Mr. Mxyzptlk has kept the heroes and their supporting casts from both aging and from realizing that they are not aging even though time is passing for people outside their circles.

[edit] Television

Star Trek

• At the end of the Star Trek episode "Requiem for Methuselah", Mr. Spock uses his Vulcan telepathic abilities to make Captain Kirk forget the woman he has fallen in love with during the episode. Because this seems to be an unethical use of his powers, fanwankers assert that Spock was driven to such extremes because Kirk's mind had been tampered with by the episode's villain to make him fall so hopelessly in love in the first place, thus making such an extreme solution necessary.
• Along the same lines, Spock's sometimes erratic behavior in the third season is blamed on the trauma suffered during "Spock's Brain". This theory was popularized by self-described nitpicker Phil Farrand.
• Each episode of the original Star Trek series (and the subsequent movies) takes place in a different alternate universe from all the others. The exception would be that "Space Seed" obviously takes place in the same continuity as the the second, third, fourth, and sixth movies, which are almost unique among the adventures of the original crew that they reference one another. Clearly, this is a mega-fanwank, as it seeks to explain the lack of inter-episode continuity (by modern standards) of the 1960s series.
• In one episode of the original Star Trek series aliens from the Andromeda Galaxy modify the Enterprise to travel at Warp 13, yet an episode of the Star Trek: Voyager series (approximately 90 years later) says that Voyager can travel at Warp 9.97 and that Warp 10 is the maximum speed possible because it is "infinite speed". This was explained by the fanwank that warp technology improved so significantly over the period that engineers "realigned the warp scale".

Doctor Who

In "Destiny of the Daleks", a Doctor Who serial, the Doctor's companion Romana tried on different new bodies during her regeneration before settling on a single one; this contradicted previously established facts about the Time Lords. Some fans have argued that Romana was able to do this either because she is female (and the rules for male and female Time Lords differ) or because she was young and in the prime of health, thus possessing more control than her fellows. Another fanwanky explanation appears in the licensed short story collection Short Trips: Companions (published by Big Finish Productions): the story "The Lying Old Witch in the Wardrobe" by Mark Michalowski states that the "Romana" seen trying on bodies in this story was not actually Romana at all, but a humanoid manifestation of the TARDIS.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer

In the Buffy the Vampire Slayer musical episode, "Once More, with Feeling", Xander Harris admits to having used a magical charm (and causing several deaths) for a trivial, selfish reason. Because this does not seem consistent with Xander's growth in maturity during the series, many fans believe he lied to protect Dawn Summers from the lecherous attentions of the episode's villain.

Hercules: The Legendary Journeys

In Hercules: The Legendary Journeys, the title character's superhuman strength and durability vary wildly, sometimes within a single episode. The fanwank for this is that the Greek gods' physical prowess, like their magical abilities, is a magical trait, not a physical one, that can be turned on and off at will, and also used at varying intensities. Usually Hercules keeps his strength on "normal human" to avoid pointlessly smashing everything he touches. When fighting a single human opponent, he turns his strength to "low superhuman" — perhaps twice as strong as normal — so he can engage in combat without killing his adversary. He uses the "full godly" level — greater than any other living creature — only when absolutely necessary.

Captain N: The Game Master

In the Captain N: The Game Master series premiere, "Kevin In Videoland", a large army was shown to be laying siege on the Palace of Power. Various members of the N Team were shown to deal with the army throughout the episode. However, after a mission to Metroid, upon the N Team's return to the Palace of Power, the army was nowhere to be seen. No explanation was given. One fanwank is that Mother Brain recalled the army to Metroid to stop her from spinning around, which Kid Icarus had caused. However, only one creature from the army would logically be required for that. Another fanwank is that the army died from Kevin's Earth germs. However, that does not explain why the rest of the N Team survived. Another fanwank is that Kevin and Lana killed the entire army after the mission to Metroid but before the final scene of the episode.

[edit] Movies

• In Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, the officers of the Enterprise are forced to consult printed dictionaries when trying to infiltrate Klingon space; they are clearly surprised by and unprepared for this development. This happened because the traitorous elements in Starfleet had implanted a virus causing the ship's universal translator to go offline at a critical moment, though in the film it was stated that they could not use the translators because the translators would have been recognized.
• In The Two Towers film, when Haldir the elf and his troops arrive to reinforce Helm's Deep, he seems to identify himself as being sent from Elrond of Rivendell, even though he has previously been established as being from Lothlorien in Fellowship; also, there has not been time for him to make the long trip from Eriador. However, his precise words are that he "brings greetings" from Elrond. Haldir identified himself as such because he know the Rohirrim feared his true ruler, the Lady Galadriel, and he did not wish to waste time reassuring him. The telepathic exchange between Galadriel and Elrond earlier in the movie was her gaining his permission to use his name as well as attempting to persuaude him to commit troops to the war against Saruman. (Also, that exchange took place much earier in the timeline than its placement in the film would seem to indicate.)
• In Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, Han Solo claims that his ship, the Millennium Falcon made the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs, even though the parsec is a measure of distance (the distance at which one astronomical unit subtends one arcsecond of sky), not of time. Officially licensed books (considered "C" canon under Star Wars canon rules) have claimed this is because the space around Kessel contains so many black holes and other anomalies that a journey to and from the system involves very large round trips to avoid these dangers. More skillful pilots, however, are able to fly closer to the anomalies and therefore cut the journey short. Han Solo's claim of making the run in under "twelve parsecs", then, indicates his skill and the agility of his ship the Falcon. This theory has been confirmed by George Lucas in the Audio Commentaries for the Original Trilogy DVDs, and would be considered a retcon if ever referenced on screen.
• In the 1987 Masters of the Universe film, apparent inconsistencies with the established continuity of the Filmation animated series exist, such as the absence of major characters such as King Randor, Queen Marlena, Trap-Jaw and Mer-Man and the lack of any mention of He-Man's alter-ego Prince Adam. Some fans contend that many of these apparent inconsistencies with the "main" cartoon/minicomic canon can be easily explained by veiwing the film as simply being set some time after the events of the regular canon. Apart from obvious inconsistencies of design (all the character's costumes and especially the Power Sword and Castle Greyskull are significantly different in the movie than they appear in the cartoon/minicomic), there is actually almost nothing in the film which is wholly unreconcilable with the cartoon and minicomics.
  
  This interpretation draws on the fact that at the start of the film Skeletor has already conquered Greyskull (and much of Eternia), which could easily explain the absence of many classic characters such as King Randor, Orko etc. Such characters can easily be supposed to have been captured, killed or driven into hiding prior to the start of the film. More importantly, this argument maintains that the lack of a depiction of (or even references to) Prince Adam does not by any means preclude his existence, and some would argue that under the drastic circumstances of the film's plot, He-Man would have no time or reason to adopt his secret identity.
  
  Furthermore, while Skeletor's Stormtrooper-esque legions admittedly had no previous depiction in the MOTU canon and although their origin or precise nature are not divulged, the very existence of such an army makes Skeletor's unprecedented victory all the more plausible. Such a shift in the nature of the conflict could well explain He-Man's escalated use of high-tech weaponry, which was, after all, always an element of classic MOTU, going right back to the earliest toys.
  
  Given the vague similarity between Skeletor's black-armoured robotic soldiers (they are show to spark and occasionally explode when stabbed or shot) and Hordak's robotic Horde Troopers, some have even speculated that Skeletor's rise in martial prowess could possibly be accounted for by his having defeated his former teacher and rival at an earlier point and, as a result, taken control of his armies.

[edit] Books

• In The Fellowship of the Ring, first volume of Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, the Nazgul are not terribly powerful: they can cow hobbits or normal men, but Aragorn is able to face off against five at once at Weathertop and force them to retreat. However, in The Return of the King they are more terrifying and apparently more powerful. This is because, in the first section of the narrative, Sauron was keeping their rings in his possession so as to reduce their aura of terror (because that was not helpful in finding the ring). When the war began in earnest, he returned the rings so they would be of maximum use on the battlefield. Another explanation might be that the Ringwraiths' power was greatest when they were all gathered together. Only five Ringwraiths were present when Aragorn drove them away at Weathertop; when all nine were present, such as during the Siege of Gondor, their power was greater.

[edit] Completely wrong?

Is it me or is this whole page completely wrong? To begin with, the term 'fanwank' has been around since the mid-1980s. I recall many DW fanzines using the term to describe the mid-Davison years and indeed the term was popular among the DW groups I was part of back then.

As far as I know, it is also almost exclusively a DW and English term. US fans do not, on the whole, employ the term or anything similar.

And, of course, it refers to the preponderance of fan-preferred elements in a show/book/whatever. It has nothing to do with covering up plot holes.--Stu-Rat 20:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't say anything for the date, but I can vouch for it being used by other fandoms and by American fans, as well for both commonly-held fanon and the fan fixing of plotholes. Never heard it in the sense of 'fanservice', though, which you seem to describe. --81.155.124.62 13:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Not just you. The only way I've ever heard this term used is to deride ridiculous fannish behavior, a la Fandom Wank. (Defined there as "self-aggrandizing posturing, fannish absurdities, circular ego-stroking, endless flamewars, pseudointellectual definitions".) But perhaps I'm in the minority. Kakumei 00:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Term

• It's kind of interesting that fanwank has caught on. 'Wank' is actually a pretty vulgar term, in my experience as an Englishman. To see Wikiedits actually summarised as "removing fanwank" and stuff like that seems hilariously inaproppriate. I guess, being an imported term, Americans don't notice it so much, but if people starting summarising stuff as "removing fanshit", I imagine it'd meet with a few reprimands. --81.155.124.62 13:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Niven not fanwanking

Deleted from the second paragraph:

One example of this is Larry Niven's 1970 novel Ringworld. Niven has recalled that while visiting a science fiction convention, he caught a group of MIT students marching down a hotel hallway chanting "Ringworld is unstable!". When they explained to him the reasons behind the instability, Niven was driven to write a sequel, The Ringworld Engineers where he revisits Ringworld and incorporates some of the corrections to the Ringworld design.^[1] He accomplishes this not by retcon, but by having the same characters discover stabilizing mechanisms in a region of Ringworld that they had not explored previously.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this is not an example of fanwankery, as Larry Niven was not a fan, but the author. Nor did the MIT students fanwank, as they complained about the mistakes rather than attempting to explain them away. —Frungi 00:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As fanwank is anything that's more obsessive than the term's user wants, that text is well within its rights to call the students fanwankers. Whether or not it is possible for an author to fanwank himself is an intriguing ontological question. --Kizor 05:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Klingons on Enterprise

The article asserts:

“

when fans of a shared universe themselves come to write for it, they may include fanwanky or fanon explanations in their own contributions, thus making them canon: one notable example is the explanation provided in the fourth season of Star Trek: Enterprise for the difference in appearance between Klingons in the original Star Trek and subsequent spin-offs.

”

But no citation is given to substantiate this claim. According to startrek.com, "Afflction"'s story was written by Manny Coto, and its teleplay was written by Mike Sussman. "Divergence" was written by Judith Reeves-Stevens & Garfield Reeves-Stevens. No indication was given that this premise was written by or based on ideas from a fan. Thus, it would appear that the premise was written by the authorized creators of that canon. Now maybe the editor who wrote this meant that Coto or Sussman or the Stevens were once fans themselves (hard to say, because like everything else in the article, he/she doesn't cite sources or even explain this), but even then, this claim is not cited either. Moreover, then this brings us into a fuzzy, problematic area: Who is and isn't a fan? Of course those who currently write Trek are fans. Everyone who saw it when they were young and now write is a "fan". Is there any current or recent Trek writer who wasn't or isn't a "fan"? And if so, how are they any different from those who first created Star Trek 40 years ago? Are they not "fans" of their own work just because they originated it? Or does fanwank refer only to those who were non-creator fans initially, and became participant creators of the work later on? It's assertions like this that require the term fanwank to be defined, and the article provides no sources that help this. Nightscream 08:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for Deletion: Conclusion was "merge"

After this article was nominated for deletion, the result was merge with Fanon (fiction), as can be seen at its page:- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fanwank

Merge discussion is at talk:Fanon.

Fourohfour 15:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)