Jump to content

Talk:Femslash

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

More links would be nice for this. KateMonkey 20:30, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Not targeted at anyone

[edit]

Femmeslash was never targeted at anyone - indeed, there is a growing number of female femmeslash writers and readers. As for whether it's more sexual than romantic...well, it's actually about equal amounts, it just depends on what you're looking for. Mydemand

History

[edit]

I was just skimming through this section, and quite frankly, it looks like it was lifted from another source. I don't have proof, but it just doesn't read right. Perhaps someone with more interest in the topic can check it out. --Bacteria 20:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The history article bit was written by me. It was crossposted to my LiveJournal and a mailing list just to see if there were any bits was missing as I wanted something more substantial on Wikipedia as the amount here was unclear and didn't really convey a sense of history. This is annoyingly important when people talk about f/f and imply it is really new. It isn't. A lot of people also have this tendency to cite Wikipedia in fan fiction history discussions... so yeah. It was originally written by me. It was put there for that reason. I've got the research notes and more details stuff in other places on my hard drive. If you have any more questions, I'm on AIM at h2oequalswater. --PurplePopple 21:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter

[edit]

I don't understand the reasoning behind listing Harry Potter as being "femmeslash friendly" in the same way as the other fandoms listed. The others contain either f/f relationships, or some f/f interaction. Not so Harry Potter. Despite the large amount of saffic being written in the HP-verse, it just isn't the case that the fandom is femmeslash friendly in the same was as the others listed.

134.226.1.136 16:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter just depends on the part of the fandom. There are a number of big femslash communities and they are friendly but they also tend to write femslash like they write boyslash. There is an obsession with dildos and replacing what women find exciting with what female writers who like boyslash find exciting. That totally changes the dynamic. (And it seems like it might be a bit misogynic...) Sometimes though one part of the community doesn't know what another is doing. --PurplePopple 20:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't quite follow. My point was that the HP canon is not femslash friendly in the same way as the other canons listed in the second paragraph of the article. Unlike the others listed, the HP canon contains neither any overt f/f relationships, nor even any apparent f/f subtext. Since the list seems to be of fandoms (in the sense of original canon) which have lead to a growth in femslash, Harry Potter (given that it is so heteronormative) seems distinctly out of place. LaraRain
My bad. I thought you were talking about the fandom, not the canon. Yeah, the canon has a distinct lack of visible female characters and female to female character interaction. --PurplePopple 20:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

[edit]

I changed saffic and femmeslash to femslash throughout (though not f/f slash, and I arguably should have). Consistency is necessary (except when describing historical name changes), and the article is currently called femslash. If this causes conflict here, then, per Wikipdeia guidelines, a verifiable attempt should be made to determine the most commonly used name and the article should be converted accordingly. Deborah-jl Talk 21:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I just did the google test (a flawed but useful metric, especially in pop culture issues) and femslash is the clear winner, followed by femmeslash and f/f slash. With under 1000 hits, saffic doesn't even light up the notability meter. Deborah-jl Talk 22:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The term "saffic" seems to have creeped into the article again. I have replaced it with "femslash". CKarnstein 16:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a few places within this article that I would like to see terminology that is unique to fanfiction circles be replaced with words that are more generally understood. Trusilver 10:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, noting that some of the limited-use language isn't fanfic-specific. I find the use of "shipping" is particularly egregious.2602:306:B84A:ABD0:9DB3:2190:3C66:498E (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Saffic" is usually used to describe f/f or gen with a certain philosophical/aesthetic approach, not to f/f in general. Agree that it does not apply to femslash in general and isn't directlyinterchangeable. I'm considering adding a separate definition to clarify. Lindleyle 14:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People

[edit]

I have removed the "People" section of this page. It was mostly just unsourced praise of fanfic authors. The main slash page doesn't contain anything like this, and I don't think readers looking for general information on femslash are going to care which author's Janeway/Torres fanfiction "would be described by many in the fandom as reaching the zenith of this romantic pairing" (especially since the citation for this claim shows that "many in this fandom" really means "one website"). If someone else can come up with a good justification for keeping the "People" section then they are welcome to restore it, but I don't see any reason to have it here. CKarnstein 16:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

This article is gasping for reliable sources. If there are any femslash experts here, I recommend citing sources and researching claims. That will really help out the copyeditors, as well. — Deckiller 09:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Femslash Sites

[edit]

I think this section could use some trimming down. As it stands, this appears mainly to be a place for sitemasters to promote their femslash webpage. I would suggest restricting/trimming it to one large website/archive per fandom (or for the larger contingents with great pairing divide, such as Star Trek: Voyager, perhaps two), in order to shorten the page and get rid of unnecessary items such as "German The L Word", "another German The L Word", etc. Excluding the more "epic" sites from this restriction (such as some of the Xena archives) may be in order, however, to be representative of popular femslash culture. CrashCart9 05:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes

[edit]

I've tried to clean up the intro a bit, as it was misleading as stands - the "subgenre of slash" claim is definitely debateable pov - and I question the need for a completely arbitrary list of fandoms that have femslash contingents. Possibly Xena fandom should be mentioned, as the most significant break from the m/m slash/gen/het divisions of earlier fandom, but I don't see the point of listing a random sampling. If absolutely necessary, it would probbly be more suitable under its own subheading than crammed into the intro. I've also added a terminology section, to clear up a little (I hope!) the question of different terms and their different uses. Still desperately short on citations, and I'm not sure how to change this article from being perilously close to original research, as there is little published material on femslash, and linking to fan blogs seems hardly a step up from writing from personal experience! I'd be really grateful if anyone could furnish citations. Lindleyle 16:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good so far. The cites are a major problem. The only place I've ever read about the history of femslash is AfterEllen.com. Here's the article I just found, but to say there's not more would be presumptuous. ZueJay (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Femslash

[edit]

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Femslash, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. --Unsigned by User:128.97.247.129 on 19 July 2007 at 05:25.

Disagree. WP:Merge at best. Notable. Taking the quick way out: Femslash has 147,000 hits, and femmeslash has 77,300 hits. Will work on it. ZueJay (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LotR cite

[edit]

Jepp, The LotR cite i added is from a book about that fandom, so the cite added to the general clause is better, thanks! The LotR cite is paraphrased from a single sentence - it actually says female pairings such as Eowyn/Arywyn. So it could be expanded and split into 2 sentences if more emphasis is to be given:

Eg. "Femslash is less common than male pairings in fan fiction overall.[cite.] This is also true for particular fandoms, for example....[LotR cite]."

But i think this split is only needed if we ever find a fandom which has more femslash, until then the LotR example can be assumed to be representative? Maybe Sailor Moon or somesuch has more femmslash then plain slash? If found, can then add: "However, some canon works that have a majority of female characters inspire a greater amount of femmslash, such as xxx.[cite.]"YobMod 08:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The understanding that I'm getting is that some fandoms seem to be naturally dominated by slash, and some by femslash. As another example of a fandom dominated by m/m slash, Tosenberger's paper says that although slash is more common in Harry Potter, one of the most popular femslash pairings is Hermione/Ginny. She says nothing else about this pairing, otherwise I would have put it in. I would imagine that Xena would be one of the fandoms that would be dominated by femslash rather than slash, and there are some sources in the XWP in pop culture article that may be helpful. One source says that Haruka and Michiru fanfiction is one of the most sought-after... [1] --Malkinann (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

Wikipedia:External links Should be carefully followed here. By its nature, fan fiction, and thus femslash, involves copyrighted material and trade marks. Use external links for sources. Examples should be confined to the External Links section and the number should be kept small so as to avoid looking like a Link farm. There are people waiting to pounce on this article due to its subject matter, don't give them a reason. Dethlock99 (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one external link, about femslash day. I think the warning is too late - this article was cleaned up last week, not that ist contained a linkfarm then either.YobMod 15:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"By its nature, fan fiction, and thus femslash, involves copyrighted material and trade marks." This is my primary concern. Most fan fiction could be infringing and the topic is still hotly contested. You are talking about citing an example (thus possible contributory infringement) rather than citing a source that states the claim made in the article. Dethlock99 (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the article before commenting. We are talking about a cited example from a book. There is no original research, no uncited material and no copyrighted material linked or used as sources.YobMod 16:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This should have been in a new section about external links and not under LoTR cite. My mistake. The problem is the www.ralst.com link. If they infringe, Wikipedia can be sued. It should be changed to something that conforms to WP: External links "Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement." -- wp:external Dethlock99 (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The raist page does not display anything copyright-infringing though, does it? Maybe other pages on the site do, but the one we are linking to does not. I guess this is why no fandom sites are linked though, but no-one plans to add any, AFAIK. Linking to no page that has links to copyrighted material would prevent linking to google, so i think that is too strict an interpretation.YobMod 19:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After much review and research, as well as a talk with a friendly lawyer, I removed half of the external link. The femslash day portion should be fine. www.Ralst.com apparently posts the content and removes it if the IP holder requests it. Their disclaimer states the owner of the IP and is followed by the story. This effectively admits that someone else owns they characters, and then they proceed to use it. Is there a link to an example that has permission that can be used as a second link? I believe that R. K. Rowling has given permission for the use of her "Harry Potter" characters in fan fiction. Dethlock99 (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How

[edit]

Does this differ from Yuri (genre), from what I can see they seem to be two different words describing the same concept? Should we merge them? Feinoha Talk, My master 21:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri is a genre of anime & manga involving lesbian pairings. It would not usually apply to a text-only presentation, and it is usually presumed (though not always!) to be characters original to the author and/or the work presenting the Yuri. In contrast, "slash" is a sub-genre of "fanfic" or Fan(-written) Fiction, usually text-centric, and set within a pre-existing fictional universe. See Fan fiction and Slash fiction for further detail, if desired. 2602:306:B84A:ABD0:9DB3:2190:3C66:498E (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Femslash. 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:

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) 20:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Femslash. 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:

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) 17:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Femslash&oldid=1201632814"