Fanwank: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
1d4chan>Saarlacfunkel (Feel free to modify if this is in any way inaccurate.) |
1d4chan>Saarlacfunkel (I'd say this counts.) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
For our purposes all three are allowed (although there is a line even we don't care to go beyond for the third), as long as what is and isn't actual canon, and what is and isn't proven fact in Real Life, are clear. It's preferable if you can cite sources in the text, but we're somewhat laxer about that than Wikipedia, as long as you're not engaging in pure strikethrough arguing. | For our purposes all three are allowed (although there is a line even we don't care to go beyond for the third), as long as what is and isn't actual canon, and what is and isn't proven fact in Real Life, are clear. It's preferable if you can cite sources in the text, but we're somewhat laxer about that than Wikipedia, as long as you're not engaging in pure strikethrough arguing. | ||
[[Category:Gamer Slang]] | |||
Revision as of 05:30, 29 June 2020
Some have questioned whether "fanwank" is allowed on 1d4chan.
Yes it is, so long as it's not pretending to be fact nor misrepresenting sources.
What is "fanwank"? Well, there are three functional definitions:
- Fan theories that patch over mistakes in canon. For example, "The Millenium Falcon made the Kessel run in 12 Parsecs" (where a Parsec is a unit of distance) is usually explained as "The Kessel run involves a black hole and other serious gravity wells, so shorter distance = better acceleration and speed". Or noting that there is a period of time that could actually be called "After America" and "before Europe" (to wit, the 1500s).
- Details included purely to make fans obsess over with joy. For example, Jango Fett bumping his helmet on the door on entering his ship, just like his son in the earlier made, but later set, Empire Strikes Back.
- Fan nonsense.
For our purposes all three are allowed (although there is a line even we don't care to go beyond for the third), as long as what is and isn't actual canon, and what is and isn't proven fact in Real Life, are clear. It's preferable if you can cite sources in the text, but we're somewhat laxer about that than Wikipedia, as long as you're not engaging in pure strikethrough arguing.