Talk:Shipping (fandom)/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Shipping (fandom). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Canon referenced but no explanation given.
This references canon with ever giving context to the term. From my understanding, it refers to ships (relationships) that are or have existed between two or more members. There are numerous other issue but that one need to be updated (by someone better at it then me).
Sivlia (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Why does this even exist?
I mean really. 72.49.212.85 (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Seconded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.100.113 (talk) 20:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- Because people are fucking idiots Equityx (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Regardless of your, my or any other opinion on the matter, it is a sufficiently used term and established portion of a major subculture of the internet and contemporary visual culture. And that's about as best I can phrase this to give it any kind of respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.53.191.4 (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Because people are fucking idiots Equityx (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- This article exists exclusively because some people may try to look up the definition of "Shipping" and come across the standard definition ("Moving goods and services from one place to another (generally)) instead of the definition in question ("The act of supporting the relationship of two or more characters in a specific fandom). -- TheSNerd (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Right, exactly. It is definitely a notable topic. Historyday01 (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- "Why does this even exist?"
- Right, exactly. It is definitely a notable topic. Historyday01 (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
By "this" do you mean the act/concept of shipping or this Wikipedia article/page? Fladoodle (talk) 09:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC) It exists because people like the idea of two characters that have chemistry being in a relationship together. It brings people joy to make fanworks based on these ships.
Multiple Problems
The article is very sexist; yaoi is bigger because of a female fanbase, for example. Who even said there were more females? And is that saying all girls like yaoi?
Also, it says it's mostly used with soap operas. Are you kidding me? I've seen hundreds of pairings in crime shows. Plus, you have all that anime. There's no possible way anyone could know which uses shippings the most.
Oh yes, and the dact the entire "Example cases of shipping-afflicted fandoms" is completely biased. Like Harry Potter, which is solely about Harry/Hermione. Okay, so you're upset, but if you're going to put this in this article you have to explore other pairings as well, and site the good things about the pairing. Still, I think that entire section should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.240.149 (talk) 08:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Another thing is how hard it is to understand this article. Not because of grammar, but because it really makes no sense. Each topic uses different shows for examples. True, that's used a lot, but the examples are very in-depth, and the entire section sounds like it's just talking about that one series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.240.149 (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Most of those problems arise from the article's lack of sources. The lion's share of its content appears to be the author's own assessment or opinion, so there's no ready way to verify its assertions.
The article is not without value; I myself landed on it seeking a definition of "shipper" as used in current Net slang and voila, question answered. It might be more useful, however, with some of the author's soliloquy trimmed out. 76.102.197.4 (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC).
Take Out The "conflicts section"
Or at least edit it to state something along the lines of "there can and have been very heated debates regarding the shipping of certain pairings in various fandoms" and then listing a couple examples or something like that. Giving a sub-heading to some fandoms is going to make everyone want to add their fandom in, and frankly I think it makes the article less of one on what shipping is and more of just an excuse for fans to continue quibbling. Even if this is not the case those parts of the article are probably better suited to be in an article on the fandom itself and in a general article like this that is about the phenomenon of shipping as a whole.
I'd do it myself, but as I don't have a lot of experience editing on wikipedia I feel it is not my place, nor do I have posess the ability to do so. Plus±Minus (talk) 02:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Uncategorized comments
I'm adding The Shipper's Manifesto to the link to external references, since it has recently become popularized and is a good list of multi-fandom shipping essays. If you have any issues with this include, please voice them. --Kyuu 00:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
What's with the lame FUBAR joke? Is there a reference? -- curious.
- Not really. See metasyntactic variable. --AceMyth 16:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
As you can see I've attempted to take on a slightly deeper and more general look into the shipping phenomenon than has appeared in Wikipedia so far- and my own perspective doesn't come close to that magnitude, so any sort of insight/details on the phenomenon would certainly be welcome. AceMyth 18:39, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Wowza. Oo That's quite the article, even if it's not finished yet. Just added a few minor touchups. I'm hesitant to create any parts of the remaining sections on my own for now, given my strong bias towards Pokémon Shipping, and lack of knowledge outside of anime shipping communities. --Mukashi 21:21, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)
- What about the phenomenon that is slash? It is one of the more recgonized shipping structures out there, yet homosexual pairings and the issues that surround them (whether legitimate or not) aren't even mentioned. Admittedly, I don't know much, but it is possible that the page on Slash Fiction would be better served as a subhead here. Thephotoman 02:11, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I agree that there should at least be a link to here from there, but given that the phenomenon of Slash preceeds modern shipping fandoms by a great margin, I think it should retain its own page. --Mukashi 07:33, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)
With regards to the debating side of things, there's another type of debate you've missed. "What has happened". In the Pokémon Shipping fandom especially, we focused on debating the significance of various Shipping "hints" and "evidence". In the end, it was still to determine what was more likely to happen of course, but that tended to take somewhat more of a backseat to everything else. Also, there have been in my experience some instances of fairly logical debate, or fairly solid platforms for arguement from one side (Usually formed only after huge internal arguements in one faction, where believers in a Ship go and refute much of the evidence others of their own ship are using until only the undeniable is left). While Shipping debates in general do deserve their reputation, I'll grant that much, it's not always the case. --Mukashi 00:43, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
- 1. "What has happened" is very much in the same vein of "what will happen"- figuring out authorial intent. Feel free to add that in, or maybe we should just change the name to "What is happening", describing this line of thought in general? 2. you're right on the logical platforms of debate (heck, I even made one myself at one point). When I finished doing the "Debate" section I figured the tone ended up being a bit more negative than the debates are deserving of. So yes, this section needs a bit of balancing in that regard.
On a separate note, somebody on the talk page of the original "Shipper" article has raised an objection to using this new article (even dubbing the action "disappointing"). I still think that even though the transformation was a bit sudden, it was necessary if we wanted a better article, so in the meanwhile I'll keep working on this- with the ideal of eventually integrating all of the info currently in the original "shipper" article and making that a redirect. AceMyth 01:39, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
If I may ask BTW, which Shipper fandom do you hail from? In any case, I'm inclined to agree with you here. The previous article hadn't been updated in days despite it needing a massive update, both for factual corrections and expansion. A drastic re-write was just what the doctor called for. --Mukashi
Originally?
Pokemon.
*manic glee*
(Though that was, like, 5 years back. :P Now I'm more interested in the phenomenon as a whole, but I do indulge myself in actual shipping in various fandoms from time to time.) AceMyth 02:01, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
Pokémon? 5 years back? From 1999....right when I really started getting into the fandom. When did you move on from Pokémon? You wouldn't happen to be someone I'd remember, would you? I'm Archaic, though depending on which part of the Pokémon shipper fandom you came from, I'm not sure if that name would mean anything to you. --Mukashi 04:29, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
Sadly, I barely remember anything from my time in the Pokemon fandom. I was only around 14, and since English is my second language and was far from properly developed back then, I was necessarily the "X/Y 4eva 0mg l0lz!!!!1!1!!1!!111111" sort of person, and even that I can only dimly recollect.
Absurdly enough, your nickname does ring a bell, though my attempts to identify that bell are utterly futile. -AceMyth 04:31, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
I was, and still am in some circles, fairly infamous for Pokémon Shipping, and I've had a fairly prominent name on the major Pokémon forums since 2001, so it's hardly surprising. You visited the large forums mainly? You probably saw me there, either as an Admin on Bulbagarden or Serebii, a mod on TPM, or in my role as a virtual figurehead leader of PokéShippers as the OPS President. I kinda got around. ^^; --Mukashi 07:22, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
If you were a mod on TPM chances are that's where I ran into you. I used to hang around there a lot, mainly sharing my inane Pokemon/Sliders crossover fanfiction.
I must mention that in an instinctive response, the name TPM still commands respect and awe in my mind, which just goes to show. -AceMyth 13:00, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
With fanfics as unique as that, I'd expect Damian Silverblade still remembers you. He works as staff for me on Bulbagarden thesedays. --Mukashi 18:05, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
- Just want to say, fantastic article. Really useful, easy to read, well divided into categories, comprehensive. I know a lot more about the subject now. Thanks to all editors involved! Penguin2006 18:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't really sure where to put this, but hopefully this will get looked at. I'd really like to point out that while it's obvious we don't need a whole section on Harry Potter shipping, why is it that it's not even mentioned? Shipping in the HP fandom is just as prominent as in a lot of the other fandoms mentioned, if not more so. I'm not pushing for an entire new section on HP, just a bit of a mention. To be quite honest, I see HP fandom shipping as one of the biggest groups out there and to not even mention it is a bit odd. Even if it's just an example or two I think it would be a nice nod to the large groups of people who ship the characters. As a fanfic writer myself, it was a bit odd to not see it even mentioned. In no way am I suggesting there's a whole section about, say, H/Hr or anything like that, so don't get me wrong. I'm not very good at editing pages myself, so this is just a suggestion. Thanks. Voltair3 (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Copyediting
While it would perhaps have been better to move the existing article, it's already been done. In any case, once the information has been completely merged, it should be redirected, and any information obtained from Shipper should be credited in edit summaries.
Is it really necessary to go into such detail about the psychology of these debates? They really aren't any different from any other sort of online fan debating.(Do balrogs have wings? Do Elves have pointed ears?) I'm inclined to think that, in the case of modern shipping, part of the reason that debates cannot be settled is that the relationships that people settle on tend to have very little basis in fact to begin with. (I've seen some remarkably wacky pairings.) I don't mean that in a derogatory manner—I was always under the impression that wild improbabilities were part of the fun.
- That's one side of the coin, which is- I agree- currently underrepresented in this article. Seeing as most of my research, so to speak, in this area has focused on the psychology behind and the futility of ship debate (the Harry Potter fandom, where people take the emotional side of shipping way too seriously, provided a lot of material to work with in that aspect), it's only natural that the "let's write fics and have a hell of a good time sharing our ideas" side of shipping- which I rarely, if at all, came in contact with directly- currently lacks descriptive info as far as this article is concerned.
- As to how much these arguments are any different than other net arguments, the answer is simple: All forums have their own idiosyncratic debates, but as long as we're talking about fiction in progress that contains characters between the ages of 12 and 40, ship debates are freakin' everywhere, or at least everywhere I've been to or heard of; and not only are they everywhere, but they tend to get a ridiculously disproportionate amount of attention wherever they pop up. So IMO there's more to this phenomenon than to many other net-based controversies and it's worth exploring on Wikipedia. --AceMyth 23:41, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
I did some format editing (heading levels), added a couple of paragraphs to the first parts, and pared down the description of the last link. We don't need to advertise for them. ;)-[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 22:58, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This is what I wrote, which I do not believe should have been summarily removed:
A significant difference between the two fan groups is that that even non-shippers admit the existence of sexual tension between the protagonists of The X-Files, as this is periodically openly acknowledged on the show. Pokémon shipping tends toward greater creativity, as many fans have never even considered the possibility of the Team Rocket members having a relationship.
I think this is interesting and useful information. Perhaps it should be included differently, but it reflects a distinction between the term as it was first used by X-Files fans and as it was first used by Pokémon fans. The existence of some sort of relationship between Mulder and Scully was never in doubt—the shipper discussion was more about whether it should be more prominent, not about whether it even existed. Suggesting that there is a romantic relationship between Jessie and James is a much more creative endeavor. (There's nothing wrong with this. I'm not saying that. Just that's it's more speculative.) There is a subtle shift in meaning here.
There needs to be more discussion of the X-Files usage if there is going to be such in-depth discussion of Pokémon. At least the way the terminology was used by those early X-Files fans (which is not entirely synonomous with its use by Pokémon fans) needs to be explained. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 23:14, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- When you put what you wrote in that light I agree it's useful information, but it could use rewording to emphasise the implications on the term's development, which is the subject. --AceMyth 23:23, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
- A minor point. A Jessie/James romance is something a lot of the fans think of. You can thank one of the manga series for that (we got official art of them married, and Jessie being pregnant). Certain other rather blatant open acknowledgements have happened with other major characters at points too. A better example would be Professor Oak & Ash's Mother.
- But yes, I agree there needs to be more talk on the early X-Files usage of it. Plenty of us are familiar with exactly how the term developed in and thanks to the Pokémon fandom, but outside of that, we're a bit clueless. --Mukashi 03:13, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)
When I made the "Cohesion and Conflict" header I was thinking more along the lines of tight-knit cliques forming factions and factions opposing one another with a nice side-order of personal vendettas, but I guess anti-ship backlash figures into that as well. --AceMyth 04:08, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
- When I first saw the header, so was I, but I quickly realised that even a short synopsis of, say, what happened with that in the Pokémon Shipping fandom would almost deserve a page of its own. I mean, just to name what happened on the major forums without description since 2000, we have...formation of OPS, PI & RSU, the 1st OPS/PI Flame war, the Bulbagarden 3 way flame war, the RSU/URS split, the "Pact of Pallet", the 1st Shippers Prom, the OPS leadership coup attempt, AAML:F&F, the TPM debates, the General Rebuttal of PalletShipping, and the 2nd & subsequent Shippers Proms. And that's just the stuff I know about. Get a high ranking PalletShipper in here, and you'll hear plenty more. --Mukashi 04:58, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)
- There was never a 3 way flame war on BMG; during the NAAML/OPS flame war, Palletshipping was banned from BMG at that time, and by the time it was unbanned, the Pact was in effect. Which leadership coup attempt, the one with Para and Mcsweeney, or the one with Para and Jarel? And for the record, the ShiShi list does still exist, I actually own it now.
- I assume that was you Chaos? You could at least sign your posts. And/or provide background on the PI, since I highly doubt you didn't have your own internal conflicts, or at least things only known amongst the group until now. Anyway, PalletShipping was banned back then, but PI members still jumped on the anti-AAML bandwagon, which turned it into a 3 way. Para and Jarel for the coup attempt, since the Mcsweeney one was pathetic at best. Didn't know about the ShiShi list though. Or maybe I'd forgotten about it. I thought you and they didn't get along. The Gaki's of PalletShipping I recall you calling them, in not so few words. Of course, that was long ago. --Mukashi 13:31, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
- How do I sign my posts when I don't have a name here? I just wouldn't consider it a 3-way since we weren't actually able to debate Palletshipping, we could only debate AAML vs anti-AAML. Just because Palletshippers were involved in it doesn't make it 3-way...ML himself held office in PI. But the Mcsweeney one was the FUNNY one. Yeah, I didn't get along with the ShiShis back in the day, but there are no people from the old days left now, it's a totally different group. And...we really never had any internal conflicts in PI that I can think of. The thing is, PI just wasn't like OPS in the sense of having a really organized government and tons of offical documents and voting on issues and elections and stuff. So there just wasn't much to fight about in that sense. Just about the only time we voted on anything or even discussed Shipping during meeting chats is when we were doing it as a send up of you guys. Though it was funny when some people wouldn't get that it was a send up and they actually thought it was serious. I can only think of a few times when there was any conflict at all between PI members, and those were mostly personal issues that were really unrelated to Shipping or the clubs.
- A hyphen after your post with your name and a guess at the time (If you can't use the signature w/ timestamp button for an actual timestamp) would be enough I think. Anyway, I suppose that is one way to look at it, but we've been referring to it as a 3 way flame war since 2000, so why stop now? While we've obviously both long since forgotten the reasons for it (And I don't think either of our archives includes that section), we must've had our reasons at the time to call it that. --Mukashi 15:20, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
- You have an archive? Is it uploaded anywhere? If not, you should upload it. My archive wasn't even an on purpose archive, it's just a bunch of stuff I randomly found in my cache years after the fact. -Chaos 2004 Dec 25
- It *used* to be uploaded, but I believe that hosting account got deleted ages ago. I still have some of the archive with me (Mostly threads I saved back while trying to create a revision to AAML:F&F, before we switched gears and worked on the General Rebuttal), but the rest of it, the archive of TPM Shippers threads, if I still have it, would be on a CD or DVD back in Australia. Unless it's buried in a subdirectory of the dead OPS forum (Must get Hiker to repair that one of these days). --Mukashi 06:04, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
As with the rest of the article, the solution may be to generalise. I'm sure there are many ways to delve deeply into the fact that shipping turns forums into clique battlegrounds without getting down to "and on february 8, 2001, prominent member of the same community QramaDueen proclaimed that she was "leeveng teh fandom 4eva & eva and theres nothing u could do 2 get me back cuz u hurt my feeelingz!" [1], only to return a day later." --AceMyth 08:32, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Point well made. Specific fandoms could always get their own pages or sub-sections later if it really warrented it. For now, we need to focus on removing the old page and merging any worthwhile data left into this one. --Mukashi 11:33, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
On that end, I recommend at the very least mentioning the uses in the Pokemon and Digimon fandoms, anime fans are not a monolithic bloc, and those two probably make up for half the anime-based shipper wars even now. --birdboy2000 9:24, 2004 Dec 16 (EST)
- I have to disagree on that one. At least as far as Pokémon is concerned, the shipper wars are a historical footnote. Or at least until the NeoPokéShippers band together like the OPS of old, and start debating with the veteran OPS members still remaining. Considering they've got evidence for one side, just like we always used to, that would be an interesting matchup. Hmmm.....maybe I should post a thread on BMGf after my finals finish tomorrow.....
- Anyway, we can't exactly take a current events position here. If we want sections (or sub-articles) on the culture within various shipping fandoms, it could only be the ones which have had the most impact on Shipping as a whole (Star Trek [Unless we just want to direct them to whatever articles exist on slash fanfics there], X-Files and Pokémon for starters), or perhaps a group which stands out as a good example of most Shipping communities, maybe Ranma and/or NGE with their huge fanfiction followings, even now years after both have been completed. Inuyasha or Detective Conan too might be able to fill that roll. --Mukashi 15:20, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
Xena
I don't really know anything about this phenomenon, so I'm not going to mess with the article, but it seems to me that the whole Xena subtext thing would be a particularly famous example. Tualha 2 July 2005 15:17 (UTC)
"Relationshippers" page merged here
Somebody started a page by the name of "Relationshippers" which is basically the same as this page here. Here are its contents (consider for merging). --AceMyth 16:29, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Relationshippers (often contracted to ’shippers) are fans of media who speculate on romantic or sexual relationships among the characters in the series, film, or book they are fans. The practice is closely tied to the creation of fanfiction and doujinshi.
- Relationshippers frequently distinguish between canon and non-canon relationships. A canon relationship is one that is openly stated, or at least strongly implied, in the source material. A non-canon relationship is between two characters who are not offically "together" in the source. In the case of an ongoing series that is still running, non-canon couples can become canon. For example, many Star Trek: Voyager fans speculated about a possible relationship between the characters Tom Paris and B'Elanna Torres long before they ended up actually forming a relationship, getting married and having a child in the series. However, another popularly speculated on relationship on that series, between Kathryn Janeway and Chakotay, did not materialize in the actual series.
- There are subgroups of relationshippers that assert that certain characters are homosexual or lesbian even if there is no specific evidence in the source material to back up that claim. An example of this is the frequently postulated Kirk/Spock relationship.
(plus these two external links:)
Collapsing history of article merge
|
|---|
History MergeThe content merge has presumably been done, since the Relationshippers is now a rdr. However, it is a rdr concealing the history of the moved material. The next two subsections document which edits, in the soon-to-be-merged history, stem from which of the originally separate developments. Because of the History Merge, determining the changes added by a specific revision is now in some cases between 2005 April 22 and September 12 more complicated than simply clicking the "(last)" lk of the revision's history entry: to achieve the result that that has in a never-merged history, the comparison must be done between that version and an explicitly specified earlier version, namely the latest previous version that was in the same history prior to the history merge. For a tool that will help with such explorations, see #Expected New History below. Page History of Relationshippers prior to History Merge
Page History of Shipping prior to History Merge
Expected New History(This is not derived from a single cut and paste from a Page-history page, but rather by hand sorting two such cut and pastes, after italicizing one of them. That seems to be the means least likely to leave behind errors that are not immediately obvious to users.
|
Requesting Expansion of "Conflicted Fandoms" Section
The "Conflicted Fandoms" section currently contains the fandoms I'm familiar with, which happen to be various "biggies" (Naruto is hugely popular, Pokemon used to be hugely popular for quite a while, and I needn't say a word about Harry Potter). But I'm only one person and I bet there are notable ones I've missed, so if anybody here has experienced any shipping madness firsthand that they can contribute, you are very welcome to do so. (BTW I bracketed "Star Wars" as a comment becaue it contained no details of actual shipping prominence, just the existence of various ships which is pretty trivial - and I don't know much about that fandom so I couldn't rewrite it, either. If anyone can provide any elaboration on any notable shipping conflict it has, please do.) --AceMyth 00:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Clarifying my previous comment: That is not to say that any cluttering up of the article would automatically be a good idea just because it adds information. I've inserted bracketed comments in the appropriate section that I see as a good guideline. --AceMyth 07:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Man, it's been a long time since I've edited this article...
- Anyway, I'll fix up that Pokémon one just quickly. While it's true that some of the main debates currently center around if Misty has feelings for Ash or Tracey, that's only really come up in the last six months to a year, and the main debates of the Pokémon shipping golden era were between PokéShipping (Ash/Misty) and PalletShipping (Ash/Gary). --Mukashi 07:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- While I think of it...we might need to clean up the section for Naruto too. While it's true that the NaruSaku fans are getting support from events in the manga post-timeskip...the NaruHina's are getting huge levels of service from the current filler season in the anime (For instance, Naruto remarking that he saw a pretty girl in the waterfall last night, which happened to be, unknown to him, Hinata training in the nude), as well as firm confirmation in the manga that the post-timeskip Hinata still has feelings for Naruto. --Mukashi 07:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it seems to be a consensus among everybody that filler doesn't count. And when I say "everybody" I mean even the same people who make the fillers. Well, at the very least now we know what they ship. =p --AceMyth 03:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- While I think of it...we might need to clean up the section for Naruto too. While it's true that the NaruSaku fans are getting support from events in the manga post-timeskip...the NaruHina's are getting huge levels of service from the current filler season in the anime (For instance, Naruto remarking that he saw a pretty girl in the waterfall last night, which happened to be, unknown to him, Hinata training in the nude), as well as firm confirmation in the manga that the post-timeskip Hinata still has feelings for Naruto. --Mukashi 07:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Megatokyo fandom
Gee - you could have just eliminated the individual strip number. - Erika and Largo seem the best ship underway though we see Kimiko also finally moving her way forward with the very obtuse Piro.
Yugioh Shipper's List
I know I've seen it, and it's complex and complete. Can we link it, at the very least?
- I know the Pokémon fandom's "(In)Complete List of Shippers" over on the Bulbapedia Wiki was linked to from this article at one stage. I'm not sure why it was removed, but I can only assume that if the Pokémon fandom's one isn't linked, yours wouldn't be either.
- A shame really, since I know the Yugioh fandom's list is almost as developed as ours, and I know other major fandoms with specialized ship names often maintain other similar lists. --Mukashi 15:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Examples
I can understand pruning back the list of examples, but the choices of which ones to keep seems to have been quite arbitrary. Harry Potter makes sense because it's such an enormous fandom and Xena for the sexual orientation angle, but Daria? I don't see what makes a mostly-forgotten MTV cartoon a more notable example than all of the ones that have been removed. 71.236.33.191 20:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- To be honest, this is really going to accomplish nothing. The list will simply bloat back again. Pacific Coast Highway blah • my tracks 18:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Example cases aren't there just to give some fandom a shout-out. They're there to better illustrate the subject. The Daria section is informative, annotated and helps the reader better understand what the shipping culture is like. Other examples (some of which keep popping up after being deleted) utterly fail to fulfill this function. --AceMyth 17:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- To be honest, I feel the only examples that belong up there are the HP fandom (media exposure) and the Xena fandom (the naughty bits). We don't need to overrun the article with a bunch of things. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • lol, internet) 05:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- As an uninformed reader I agree with the parent. I had no idea what the hell shipping was after reading everything above the Daria example, but did not understand what was even being deliniated until I read that paragraph. I think the introduction to thtis article needs some work. The first paragraph is terse and failed to give me any idea of what was going on. "refers chiefly to various related social dynamics observable on the Internet" is the work of someone hopped up on their 8th grade vocabulary book and too many cups of coffee.
Rather than having the Pokémon one pop back up yet again later, perhaps it might be worth putting up a link to the History of Pokémon Shipping case study over on the Bulbapedia. While it's very much a work in progress, and there's a few factual errors that still need to be corrected, it's as definitive a work as you'll find for that fandom, outside of us providing an example of the infamous "General Rebuttal of PalletShipping" essay series. --Mukashi 14:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
It looks like we have a potential POV issue with the Harry Potter example. The line "Despite overwhelming book evidence supporting the Harry/Draco pairing" is a pretty obvious tip-off there. Especially considering that this supposed evidence doesn't exist in the first place. (A POV statement of my own there, I know, but I'm fairly sure that the author has stated as much herself in regards to it) --Mukashi 15:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think the exmaples sections should be split into separate articles and linked from here. Seriously, the Harry Potter section alone comprises more than half of the article. Fine, it's a good example, but the article isn't about Harry/Hermione shippers, it's about shippers in general, so that stuff should be moved to its own page with a brief summary here with a link to the page. Likewise for the Daria and Xena examples, though they're slightly more reasonable in length. Lurlock 19:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- There are several arguments regarding what makes the Harry Potter example important enough to be included full-length in this article (I don't think there's any precedent for a fandom getting so much feedback on shipping from an author). But regardless of that, I can guarantee you that if you split it off and give it its own article it will be nominated for deletion within nanoseconds and the best you could hope for is a consensus to merge it back here. The worst is that it will be deleted and as this page will be mentioned in the discussion too, somebody will decide to nominate /it/ as well, possibly succeeding on grounds of too much unreferenced original research. --AceMyth 12:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The examples are important because I didn't even really understand what shipping is until reading the examples. So would this be like the debate among Lost fans about whether Kate should be with Sawyer or Jack? That's pretty mainstream. 161.130.178.151 (talk) 10:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Etymology of Shipping
I'm just curious (not being a native speaker): Couldn't it be possible that the term "shipping", as an abbreviation, originally derives from the verb "to worship"? I immediately got this idea when I heard about "shipping" because it's usually done by someone who wor"ships" a certain work of fiction. Of course this doesn't mean that the current explanation is completely wrong. However, as the "relationship/rocket-ship pun" can only serve as an explanation from 1998 onwards, I think that the article should also take into account the above possibility.--Diavolino79 01:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
This whole entry seems to have no basis in facts. Hasn't there been shipping since the Original Star Trek series aired? We did it all by mail then but the shipping/fan fiction community is hardly something new.
The word is derived from relationship. --Luigifan (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Weasel Words
Right now there are many examples of weasel words in this article. Statements like, "Some fans thought..." or "Many fans believed...", that kind of thing. It ascribes an opinion to a vaguely-defined, unspecified and unquantified group of anonymous people. Every opinion must be sourced, and every source must be verifiable and reliable. That's especially difficult in an article of this type, with fandom as its subject, but as it stands it lacks a large number of necessary sources.--Nalvage 23:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Seriously, WTF. This article is indepth to an insane degree (and only 1000 words less than George Washington) and in most cases uses forums and blog posts as its sources (if it bothers to cite sources at all). The Examples section needs to be cut down severely as it comprises most of the article and is mostly fancruft.140.140.58.8 20:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- OK guys, I'll agree it's hard to cite references for peoples opinions, especially since the phrases that we would normally call "weasel words" are, in my opinion, well used in this article. It would be very difficult to find a better term for "a section of the population of fans" that nicely encompasses the concept of said phrase. That being said, sources should be available to back up what "some/most people" say or think. This can be done by searching any fanfic forum. Thank you from Bingo182 22:51, 11 November 2007 (GMT)
- Seriously, WTF. This article is indepth to an insane degree (and only 1000 words less than George Washington) and in most cases uses forums and blog posts as its sources (if it bothers to cite sources at all). The Examples section needs to be cut down severely as it comprises most of the article and is mostly fancruft.140.140.58.8 20:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Spoiler Warnings
I think it might be appropriate to either attempt to remove some of the spoileristic/spoilertastic information in the Harry Potter section (and possibly others-- I'm not really familiar enough with them to know) or put a spoiler warning there. IMFromKathlene 08:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Huge cut
It is with the utmost regret that I have just sliced away huge chunks of this article. This is not because I thought that they were incorrect or misplaced, and definitely not because of any personal agenda (the vast majority of the stuff that got cut is stuff that I wrote myself, albeit several years ago). Rather, it was because the whole unfounded "analysis of the psychology of shipping" angle was a disaster waiting to happen and volatile ammunition in the potential hands of anybody who would ever decide to nominate this article for deletion.
I still think that analysis of the psychology behind this ubiquitous "all-mankind-love-a-lover" phenomenon has its place here. Unfortunately, the writers of Wikipedia (or me, in this case) are not qualified to be the ones doing the analysis. We are not psychologists or sociologists- we are, at best, people who have been through a ship debate or two and are aware of some popular (mis?)conceptions about what it is that makes people devote threads upon threads to pairing discussion. Even assuming that every piece of this analysis was correct, we just don't have the references to back it up in any way. That's WP:NOR for you.
I have consequently removed the tags calling out the tone/original research issues with this article; my feeling is that they no longer apply, or at least not to a degree justifying that the page be tagged. --AceMyth 09:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, three years on, this thing has HUGE original research issues. The etymology section is source to a usenet post, for goodness sake. Someone needs to take this mess to AfD. 99.62.185.62 (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
More on etymology: Origins in daytime tv?
While I can't contest when the word "shipper" first became common, I think this article is overlooking a big influence which is the dominant trend towards "supercouples" on daytime television beginning in the mid-1980s. Although romance was always a factor in soap operas, the love of a particular couple over the investment in the individual characters became dominant on some shows, like Days of our Lives but was a trend throughout the whole media form.
Then, in the mid-1990s, around the time that Internet discussion boards like MediaDomain got started, it became common to elide two characters' names into one word ("Jeva", "Carjack", "Lumi", "Shelle", "Liason", etc.) to describe a couple rather than posting the two names individually. This started out as a little bit cute but is now ever-present in online discussions. It's not that viewers are big fans of the characters but of the potential, the development, or the fulfillment of a relationship between two characters who may or may not ever get together.
Although soap operas are frequently dismissed, the fact that "shippers" now dominate the discussion boards for 10 years now I think should be acknowledged on this entry. As far as I know, there isn't a lot of slash produced but soaps have a pretty solid gay audience so it might exist on different forums than I've visited.
As a sidenote, over the years I've noticed that most slash I've seen (on LOTR or POTC characters, for example) is written by straight women, not gay men. I'd love to know more about why that is the case. Even the female authors I'm friends with can't explain their fascination with it.--Nwjerseyliz 02:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
To user:72.204.26.107 and any Harry/Hermione Shipper who might come across this article
People, look. You want to denounce Rowling, you want to write a manifesto, you want to explain to the world how Rowling went wrong, go ahead. You have the full right to.
This isn't the place to do it. Wikipedia is about describing controversies, not ruling in them or proving some side right by listing arguments in its favor. Wikipedia will not tolerate blatant infractions of Neutral Point of View policy's fairness of tone clause by having arguments for one point of view, a MINORITY point of view shared only by a fraction of even online shippers, might I add, vastly outnumbering all other assertions and sentiments in this section, pretending that this point of view and the premises that it derives from are naturally correct ("They staked their chosen pairing on Rowling's sophistication as an author"? For crying out loud).
If you're here to improve this Wikipedia article, a good place to start would be to stop sandwiching every single attemptedly neutral or, god forbid, positive chip of interpretation of Rowling's artistic choices of the Romance in her series with a thousand reservations and opinionated sermons. If you're here to make a point and "spread the message" of the wronged Harmonians, I repeat, this is not the place. --AceMyth 22:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
To AceMyth - A detailed response
You're mistaken here, and it should be added that your own contributions here, which have primarily consisted of deletions and comments in the summary area, suggest biases of your own regarding the subject (or at best reactionarism, which I can at least understand, given the emotional appeal of the subject). Nonetheless, I want to clarify the attempt here was to refer to the unusual appeal (for shipping conflicts) to literary critique engaged by the Harry/Hermione fans and co-opted by some of the other "ships" as a result and the affect it's had on the series itself. I've worked hard to clean up the language of the article and to summarize these issues (as POV and the reasoning behind is critical in an article about a phenomenon that involves disagreements about a series - indeed POV must be described in detail, if the article is to be truly informative.) I've moved the references to Rowling's sophistication as an author to the end and tried to summarize them so that aspect of the debates (which is rather unusual for shipping conflicts, and thus an important piece of information for the article) can be addressed.
Rather than engaging in wholesale and, by your own admission prejudiced, deletes. Some constructive criticism and perhaps contributions (from what I suspect would be the other camp - BTW - I don't consider myself a "shipper" persay in that I'm interested in the characters and what Rowling did with them. I'm a former English/Creative Writing undergrad who is interested in this subject as related to these books because fo the implications it has on the writing itself. I admit to being in general agreement with the "Harmonians" (heh) about their suggested outcome because that's the outcome that makes the most sense to me based on books 1-5 for literary reasons. Books 6-7 are interesting because the writing seems to be influenced by these attempts to ground a "shipping dispute" in a literary basis, and the characterizations change in inconsistent ways as a result, something I predict literature scholars will note in future evaluations.
If you talk to some of the H/Hr shippers who write teh more sophisticated essays, etc., you'll find that many of them would not oppose the other ships nearly as much (or at all in many cases) if those ships made as much sense from a literary basis. In other words, a substantial portion of the H/Hr shippers, many of them adult readers, have reached their conclusion based on what Rowling appeared to be doing as an author, and based on Rowling's own appeals that she was engaging in a high level of symbolism, clues, etc. Also, from a dramatic (and thus again literary) viewpoint, the Harry and Hermione relationship is, unequivocally, the best drawn and deepest relationship in the books. Part of this is attributable to the fact that, as males (like myself), Ron and Harry's relationship is limited by the standard way in which males interact, which tends to avoid deep challenges to personality and emotional intimacy.
I haven't intended to start a fight here, which is why I'm working to clean up the article, but I sincerely beleive that the article as existed before was very biased or perhaps more charitably uninformed regarding some of the key disagreements, which are quite sophisticated themsleves. It's fascinating to find an author and her audience in disagreement, based on the author's own work. It demonstrates an old adage, that authors are sometimes not fully aware of the implications of their own work, and that intent in a literary work must be accompanied by the heavy lifting needed to convey it. The great irony of this particular shipping debate is that the readers suggested that Rowling was a great writer, trafficking in highly layered literary conventions and patterns, were the ones who ultimately wound up most in disagreement with her. Like it or not, that is a highly relevant topic for this article.
If obfuscation is all you are interested in, I suggest finding an unbiased mediator to evalute this content and hopefully make constructive suggestions that will enrich the article. I am very open to that, as I hope my changes show. I would certainly like to see any references to mature R/Hr literary critiques that bolster that argument or references to R/Hr perspectives on the "literary argument", or to R/Hr perspectives that attempt to undermine the shipping conflict as a literary debate. They are not easy to find. Indeed, I have left out potential references for H/Hr perspectives on this matter because it is difficult to find journal or news articles that recognize the phenomenon.
PS The lines about Emerson Spartz are mine also. He certainly has demonstrated industry and vision in creating a Harry Potter site at such a young age. He has also however, used the fame it has brought him to regularly and publicly denigrate people in disagreement with him, and has offered little of substance to the debate I'm most interested in. Feel free to offer some constructive critique regarding the references to his image in the fandom. I know he has quite a following amongst younger fans of the series, but he has been a very divisive figure, and gleefully so in my opinion. His "apology" was a singular example of weaseldom. But I can certainly see some modification in them. Deleting them entirely though would not enrich the article.
Best - user:72.204.26.107
- Everything you add has to be backed up with a source. TheCoffee 16:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I am sorry for my late reply; I have skimmed over your detailed response and have this to say.
- I do have biases of my own. Indubitably. Do you know where else I had biases of my own? During editing bouts of the article about the Second Lebanon War, with missiles raining here and there in a few kilometer radius every now and then while I typed, all the while editors I suspect would have rather appreciated me being hit by one of said missiles and dropping dead were rather impressed with my impartiality. I have many faults, but an inability to see beyond my bias when the need arises is not one of them. I often do have a primary reaction to these assertions and others that is rather emotional, but ultimately I do not make changes to Wikipedia if the only justification I can think of is anger and spite. This is not about who has which bias. This is about how we apply our bias to the article, or rather, hopefully, how we don't.
- The justification for my "reactionism", if you insist to call it that, is that the thing on the other side of this talk page is not a Master's Thesis on the Harry Potter ship debates. It is not, in fact, even an article about the Harry Potter ship debates, but rather an article about the shipping phenomenon in general. Given this, and given the fact that finding a reliable source for many of the claims we would make on a hypothetical detailed run-down of the HP ship debate would be flat-out impossible, we are left with a simple, inevitable conclusion: This article will not describe the Harry Potter Ship Debates that you knew (and, yes, I did too, to a mild extent). This article will describe a highly abridged representation of the Ship Debate aimed at the casual reader who has had absolutely no interest in the subject until this very point. Said representation will bow humbly to the principle of least astonishment and the necessity of utmost brevity. Or, rather, this is what it will do if it does not want to eventually explode out of existence in a sudden AfD. This is not speculation; this has already happened. There used to be an article around with the title "Shipping in The Harry Potter Fandom", no less, in which your edits would have felt right at home, with the Harry/Hermione position having a whole section to itself to state its case. Said article, apart from often being cited and praised in H/Hr forums in spite of allegedly-biased yours truly writing the section on that as well, eventually became so bloated with digressions and original research that when the AfD came it was doomed from the first vote.
- Now, keeping that in mind, we are left with the task of honestly representing the Harry Potter ship debates in two paragraphs and a half. Say what you will, but constantly referring to the H/Hr set of mind's perspective on everything as the final word- even where it was patently absurd, such as with insisting that "Harry and Hermione? Do you really think they're suited?" and "They're very platonic friends" and "Harry and Hermione, do you think so? Ron and Hermione, I'd say there's more tension there" are, by some logic that is clearly not earth logic, inconclusive- is not honestly representing anything. Harry/Hermione shippers, from GoF onward, were the minority. Of them, those who insisted on such arguments, and later on pillow symbolism and love potion theories and whatnot, were a smaller minority still. We cannot have Joe Reader coming into this article and believing that any of these views were factually legitimate by any stretch of the imagination. We are, I'm afraid, past that jolly era of forum discussions where humoring whatever belief, no matter how absurd, was fashionable. This is Wikipedia. Does Wikipedia end every paragraph on the Theory of Evolution with a rebuttal from the creationist point of view? Let alone leave it at that as the final word? It doesn't matter how notable or ironic or important creationists are. Doing that would be dishonest and misrepresentative of established consensus, given the cold, hard, facts of the matter. And the same rationale, I believe, ought to apply here. --AceMyth 09:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
To The Coffee
Read the earlier sections of the article. Of the first four sections, only 1 contains a source.
You are engaging in selective and inconsistent editing. Please refrain from this in future.
- If the above is unsourced, then delete it. Don't compound the problem by adding even more unsourced statements. --Migs 17:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- You're right, all the unsourced information has to go. TheCoffee 17:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Then much of the article must be taken down. You're not following this idea to it's logical conclusion, I suspect because your interest is less in the encyclopediac integrity of the article than in a particular bias against the concept discussed.
- You are absolutely right. I propose, then, that we take much of the article down. Don't you go reverting it while we work on it. --Migs 17:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, the thread posting linked to the article was an example of the phenomenon described in the article. This makes it a viable source (example).
- See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Forums are not reliable sources. TheCoffee 17:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Then Wikipedia is a massive self-contradiction because it is loaded with unsourced material and "unreliable" sources. The spirit of the work however is to limit inaccuracies and subjectivity. If your goal is truly to remove unsourced or unreliable source material, I suggest you start at the top and work your way down to this page. It is transparently obvious why you have chosen this particular document.
digressing?
Doesn't this article seem to get a bit...too caught up in the specifics of very (well) specific examples of shipper debates, and the details of certain shows? Wouldn't it be better to merely limit it to giving some basic examples? i.e., the show/story in question, and the character pairs in question. And then maybe mention that people can get very worked up about this, with maybe one or two sentences about that (say, JK Rowling's thing). And as to the etymology, if something is pretty much shown to be a false etymology, why mention it in such loving detail? Why not say, "there are many stories surrounding the origin of this term, the first known use of it was _______." Novium 15:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Avatar shipping
I know this is late, but some people are still talking about the shipping at the end of the series. People are still pissed off about waht happened at the end. Also, I don't want some Kataang fascist to delete this since all of you are mostly like that or agree with it. The shipping thing should be part of the negative feedback on Sozin's Comet article. It is actually part of the negative feedback of the finale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.2.164.92 (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Request of editing out Shippings and question about editing out shippings
I've been editing Misty bio to mention PokeShipping (AshxMisty) but people have been editing it out because they said it a matter of opinion to think that the "hints" means she MIGHT have a crush on Ash because it isn't confrimed (which I said it wasn't confrimed too). Which was all I was saying. What upset me is there ALOT of other shippings where they say the character might have a crush but it isn't confrimed. Like no ones editing contestshipping (DrewxMay) from Drew's profile! I would like for people to start editing these other shippings if there going to edit Misty's! Here my list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_major_Naruto_characters#Hinata_Hyuga
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Zelda#Relationships_with_other_characters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_characters#Other_recurring_characters ^it says Misty ABSOLUTELY does have a crush on Ash here too no one editing it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_racer#Characters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_characters_in_Tales_of_Symphonia#Colette_Brunel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tales_of_Eternia#Characters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamtaro#List_of_main_hamsters
Ones I could find sure there's more. Think of how ridiculous it would be to edit every single shipping that was unclear? I'm making a point here that unclear shipping isn't a waste of wikipedia space just because it's verifiable! It's means only if it's proven that a charatcer likes another will the shipping ever be mention, that takes out alot of shippings, it doesn't matter how popular it is and how many hints it has if it isn't 100% true it must be taking it out! Thus doesn't exist on this site!
My question is if Misty were to kiss Ash on the cheek (or even on the lips doubtfully)Would that not be a good enough to mention in her Bio? How would you mention it without making a relationship with Ash section? How is it not evidence? OMG she kissed him!! NO That's not proof she likes him she could had tripped!LOL:P Good Friends can get kissed and still be unclear if they have romantic feelings Look at these examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beast_Boy#Personal_life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Zoids:Chaotic_Century_Characters
These weren't edited too! But seem important enough to mention.
EternalSunlight (talk) 07:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Citing Wikipedia within Wikipedia doensn't count, sorry.
- This isn't the place for hints collections. If you want to do that, go to TVTropes or its respective Bulbapedia article.
Come back when you can provide legitimate sources on legitimate subjects for inclusion in this article. Thanks. —ДlεχThεRσϛε 03:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Show-Specific Shippery
I think shipping of specific shows should be split out from this article. I can see a time when the examples (section 5, I dunno how to link to named anchors in an article, sorry*), will expand greatly with Shippers adding their own examples. I mean, I'm not a fan of Shipping at all, but even I could come up with some some high-profile examples.
Anyway, for now it fits, but it's worth watching to see if it grows.
Mongoletsi (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think the show-specifics (Daria, Potter, Xena) are rather out of control in this article. The idea is to define shipping, not to delve deeply into specific events with specific shows. One could argue that "Team Edward" and "Team Joseph" (Twilight) and "Team Bill" and "Team Eric" (True Blood) are also 'controversies', even though both of them are already "decided" in the books. (True Blood has the advantage of promising NOT to be true to the novels, heh.)
- It's a shame that the show specifics are pretty much the only footnoted sections in this wiki article, but ... I don't think they rate keeping. *Possibly* a condensation down to 1-2 paragraphs each, at most. Just my opinion. Tkech (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- I mean, if we can find more controversies when it comes to notable shows, then sure, they can be added in. I did cut down on a little in my recent edits, but perhaps not enough? I don't know. Historyday01 (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Where to get references
Shipping is an ever-present phenomenon but there are very few articles where serious research about it is made. Do you know any few sites about serious essays and articles about shipping? --Artman40 (talk) 06:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Additional citations
Why, what, where, and how does this article need additional citations for verification? Hyacinth (talk) 05:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Current definition
Shipping, derived from the word relationship, is the belief that two fictional characters, typically from the same series, are in an intimate relationship, or have romantic feelings that could potentially lead to a relationship This is the current intro. I don't think that Shipping refers primarily to the belief. 202.156.10.10 (talk) 06:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- It does. A belief can exist whether said shipping is proven or not. —ДlεχThεRσϛε 03:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
HomeShipping
I believe Homestuck should be mentioned in this article, as it is a huge part of the shipping subculture. There are hundreds (maybe even thousands) of ships in the fandom. I mean, if there's an entire paragraph for Harry Potter (just so you know, I am a potterhead, not hating) there should at least be a lime for homestuck. 67.142.178.25 (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Terminology
I rather liked the terminology section. Can someone put the list back, rather than just the general description? --River 20:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SELI-chan42 (talk • contribs)
- Can the info be properly sourced with reliable sources? If so, please provide the sources. Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Middle-school writing
This article looks like it was written by an intelligent 7th grader. I contributed, but I don't think it's helped much.Artheartsoul1 (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Did I write that? Oh well. It still holds water. Artheartsoul1 (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Shipping (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 http://web.archive.org/web/20121102140841/http://www.mtv.com/onair/daria/chapter2/guy.jhtml to http://www.mtv.com/onair/daria/chapter2/guy.jhtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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 IITalk to my owner:Online 16:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Same sex a "Non conventional" ship?
Can we please move same-sex out of the non-conventional ships section? I'd actually argue that the shipping community is practically run by gay male pairings, with different-sex pairings following it. It's too common and too intricate to shipping "culture" to be placed there, regardless of what some people in society (especially people who don't tend to ship) think of same-sex couples. Artheartsoul1 (talk) 08:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Artheartsoul1. The entire characterization of certain ships as non-conventional is simply unhelpful and irrelevant. This section should just be titled, "Type of Ships" or "Ship forms". 2601:197:800:2615:CDB1:8939:9581:78A1 (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Shipping (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/20101120011048/http://www.theage.com.au/index.html to http://www.theage.com.au/index.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150822210542/http://www.the-wildone.com/dvdaria/glennanswers.html to http://www.the-wildone.com/dvdaria/glennanswers.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081206134719/http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/feature/2005/09/15/xena/index2.html to http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/feature/2005/09/15/xena/index2.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071230022649/http://www.katherinefugate.com/katresponds/katherineresponds30.htm to http://www.katherinefugate.com/katresponds/katherineresponds30.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060316221055/http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=21 to http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=21
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060820021947/http://community.livejournal.com/ship_manifesto/ to http://community.livejournal.com/ship_manifesto/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512030934/http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/madampuddifoot/edit-squirke01.shtml to http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/madampuddifoot/edit-squirke01.shtml
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) 20:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Shipping (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/20120225142030/http://www.the-wildone.com/dvdaria/glennfollowup4.html to http://www.the-wildone.com/dvdaria/glennfollowup4.html
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) 21:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Revert rationale:
As per recent edit:
(1) WP is not a dictionary; 2) WP is not a fansite; 3) WP is not an indiscriminate list; 4) none of this is notable; and 5) etc.)
- It common practice to explain the etymology of a word, this does not make Wiki a dictionary.
- How does this article come under fan site criteria?
- Ditto - how is it a list?
- I agree that it needs more sourcing, but there are sources which suggest the phenomena is a notable one.
- etc indeed.
Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with this revert you made. But, as is obvious, the article needs a lot of work. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- This is a wikia article, not a WP article. If you can't figure out the answers to those questions by yourself, then I really wonder how you have managed this long on WP. But I guess there are different rules for fandoms than there are for every other article on this site. I actively disown this portion of the project. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 02:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- As an experienced (I assume) editor, you should know that it is up to you to explain your reasoning, not for other editors to try and figure out what you might mean. If you cannot explain your reasoning for any action that you have taken, then it's pretty axiomatic that there is probably no good rationale at all.
- How on earth is "etc" a valid reason to delete and remove info? Why is it a fansite? Despite your oblique criticism of me, I see that you haven't actually answered the questions.
- Your arguments fall squarely into the WP:IDONTLIKEIT category so far, and until you deign to explain yourself will remain there. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- This is a wikia article, not a WP article. If you can't figure out the answers to those questions by yourself, then I really wonder how you have managed this long on WP. But I guess there are different rules for fandoms than there are for every other article on this site. I actively disown this portion of the project. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 02:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- You could probably cut down on the detailed definitions, but everything that has research related to it, or is needed to explain the rest of the article or related articles on WP needs to stay. So I do not agree with a full blanking of all that content, but someone with a loving hand do need to seriously decimate it though. Right now the definitions are also doubled under both types and terminology. Carewolf (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- I have cleaned up what I thought was the worst of the duplication. I will let the article rest for a while, and later try to remove definitions that doesn't say anything relevant except defining the term.Carewolf (talk) 09:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
"Non-conventional ships"
Since when is Wikipedia about editorializing on what's "conventional" or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.145.177 (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Edit request
Maybe add the ship between this person and this person into "Notable fandoms". I'm requesting on the talk page as idk if it's appropriate on Wikipedia. Answers would be helpful though. 92.12.135.216 (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
only somewhat pointless article
My first reflex was that this subject rightly deserves to be folded into Slash fiction.
That is not entirely correct, however. On reflection, seeing as this article is primarily about anime and manga, then clearly that is the focus. Therefore, anything not dealing rather closely with anime or manga should not be in this article. Fair enough?
Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Not at all. The three quoted sections are Daria, Harry Potter and Xena, none of which are Anime. Seems good enough as is, but can always be improved. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, there probably is some anime which has shipping wars or something, right? Also, anime nor manga is ever mentioned in this article... --Historyday01 (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
overreliance on "notables"
The Notable fandoms section is much too thick, making up fully half of a <30K article. It seems to be there primarily to artificially inflate the page's superficial importance. For this alone, I intend to decimate the peacocks, but I will mention my rationale.
First: exactly what source has stated — succinctly — that these media properties are in any way "notable" much less representative? Lacking that, it's the dread Original Research/synthesis.
With those examples in mind, is "shipping" now officially dead? See, Daria ran 1997-2002, so (in this Internet Age) a generation back; aside from initial (year-old) press-release squawking, the reboot has yet to appear. The Xena franchise ran 1995-2001, and the most recent comment cited is from 2005; Harry Potter doesn't fare much better. Children who experienced them the first time 'round are now parents if not grandparents, so clearly something more recent — if such exists! — would be actually accessible to the "general reader."
The bulk of prose for all three given examples is unsourced and highly conjectural. It's phrased in such a manner as to woo the reader into believing that "shipping" is Something Somehow Seriously Significant, and therefore soapboxing.
And if the commentary has any validity worth mentioning, it probably ought to be in the specific articles, rather than buried here. If it's not worthy of being mentioned there, then it's not "more notable" here.
In short: At least mention briefly the "shipping" involved in each, then send the interested reader off to the specific sections in those articles. Meantime, find some source that mentions timely examples.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- I haven't dug in to determine who left the following at the head of the Notable fandoms section, but it certainly bears repeating:
- STOP. Do not automatically add a fandom here only because it's popular, or it happens to have ship debate in it, or you happen to have participated in it. Wikipedia is NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, and another subsection here followed by a list of ships a certain fandom has and a description of who is at the throat of whom does NOT benefit this article and will terribly clutter it in the long run. Before you add a fandom here, consider:
- How is the shipping in this fandom unique/notable? Can you describe something that makes this particular fandom's ship conflicts stand out?
- How do the particular aspects of this fandom better illuminate/flesh out the shipping phenomenon?
- There is a HUGE importance to whether or not you can cite /author response/, the actual artist in question being aware and responding to the shipping conflict. This unequivocally establishes that shipping is not a fringe phenomenon that somebody just happened to start a fancruft wikipage of.
- In general, unless a fandom happens to be an outstandingly strong example of something already described in the article or have some other unique non-trivial aspect to its shipping culture, there's no reason to adding it here. This article is called "shipping" and is here to inform about the phenomenon, not any particular fandom that happens to house it- at least not in and of itself.
- Smart, particularly #2.
- I will certainly be trimming back on the details presented here that are of interest exclusively to fans of the media property, and unhelpful to the "ideal W'pedia" user who shows up here to find a quick answer to the musical question "w.t.f. 'shipping'?"
Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)- Ah, so you are the one who added that long notice. I still do think there should be a notable fandoms section, but I also think that only having three shows is too limiting because I don't think any of the shows are from the 2010s... and there has got to be at least a couple more which have intense shipping wars (maybe supernatural and star trek?). I don't know if I want to get rid of any of those examples, but I'd be willing to change my mind on that in the future. Historyday01 (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Messy page (Changes?)
There are loads of problems with the wording and definition. Shipping can be platonic as well, and this page almost does nothing to touch upon it. I'm not sure what the rules are with fandom pages like this one, where there is no definite source to directly take the information from, but I can say for a fact that the last three "ship types" are not ship types. Those are tropes.
The ship types should be Het (male/female), Slash (male/male), Femslash (female/female), Polyamory (Person/Person/Person/etc.), and Non-binary (any ships involving non-binary characters). There are also the platonic ships, familyships and friendships, which have slowly been gaining popularity the last couple of years due to the growing distaste for shipping real-people ships romantically.
I'm hesitate to implement these changes, since it's big and would involve deleting information that has been on here for a while. So I want to hear what others editors think about this.
Androbirb (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- Androbirb (I moved your comment down; new posts go at the bottom of talk pages) I agree with you that it's a messy, mostly unsourced article. If you can find any reliable sources that discuss the types of ships, that section needs rewriting. Without a reliable source, it's just substituting one set of unsourced, original research for another. Schazjmd (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, Androbirb, that's user-generated content and isn't a reliable source. Google Scholar search finds a number of papers on the topic, that's a better place to look. Schazjmd (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, there are many good sources there which can be used to improve this article. Historyday01 (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, Androbirb, that's user-generated content and isn't a reliable source. Google Scholar search finds a number of papers on the topic, that's a better place to look. Schazjmd (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
The Dream Fandom & Shipping
Is it possible to add mentions of the popular Minecraft livestreamer/speedrunner Dream (YouTuber)? If so, where?
Sidenote: Would adding mentions of Dream Mutilation Fanart be biased, or no?
XxBradMacxX (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- I like dream too, but just because people ship him does not mean he needs to be part of the article, especially as there doesn't seem to have been any articles published about him in relation to shipping. As for "Dream Mutilation Fanart" I'm not entirely sure what it is, and a quick google hasn't particularly helped, so I think it's safe to say it's not relevant enough to be in this article. Thedoglover12 (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Remove "Notable Fandoms" section?
As far as I can tell, most of this article's problems seem to stem from the "Notable fandoms" section, a section which does not add much to people's understanding of shipping in general. Because of this, I think that removing the whole section and replacing it with a few sentences in other sections referring to a couple of notable ships may be a good idea. It's a very big change, so I'm hesitant to implement it without consulting other people first. Thoughts? Thedoglover12 (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Nope. The Notable Fandoms section is still missing Pokémon among other fandoms. Removing this section means some might try to make articles on those notable fandoms, with the larger ships getting full articles (about the same size as the "Lake Tarpon" or "Tom Brady" (as it would appear in 2005) articles. I do respect your opinion, though. --TheSNerd (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed, TheSNerd. I've thought about creating a section for Star Trek, considering that there is a post on the official Star Trek website about "The Top 15 Star Trek Fanfiction 'Ships," but I'm not sure, because that series might have enough focus with the Kirk/Spock shipping stuff already... Anyway, I do think the notable fandoms section should be expanded, as having sections for the fandoms of Daria, Harry Potter, and Xena: Warrior Princess is nice, but too limiting to only have three. Of course, we shouldn't include every fandom, but I just have a sense that only have three is too limiting. There may be some more sources on Google Scholar (I stopped on page 5 when updating this article), as there was apparently shipping wars when it came to Supernatural (see pages 57-60 of "The SPNFamily: Supernatural and the Fandom Like No Other"). Good sourcing going forward may be the Journal of Transformative Works and First Monday for starters, although there are many other reputable publications which have written about shipping. Historyday01 (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Can you also help me find a reputable source that even mentions any major Pokémon ships? I could not find any on the sites you provided for reputable sources, and Bulbapedia is not considered "reputable" as a source. --TheSNerd (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- It seems that Dictionary.com could be a source per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 349#Reliability of dictionary.com. There's a CBR article on Pokemon ships. I did find the shipping fandom page and while that was helpful in giving names of ships, it can't be cited as a reliable source as it falls under WP:SPS. Historyday01 (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Can you also help me find a reputable source that even mentions any major Pokémon ships? I could not find any on the sites you provided for reputable sources, and Bulbapedia is not considered "reputable" as a source. --TheSNerd (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed, TheSNerd. I've thought about creating a section for Star Trek, considering that there is a post on the official Star Trek website about "The Top 15 Star Trek Fanfiction 'Ships," but I'm not sure, because that series might have enough focus with the Kirk/Spock shipping stuff already... Anyway, I do think the notable fandoms section should be expanded, as having sections for the fandoms of Daria, Harry Potter, and Xena: Warrior Princess is nice, but too limiting to only have three. Of course, we shouldn't include every fandom, but I just have a sense that only have three is too limiting. There may be some more sources on Google Scholar (I stopped on page 5 when updating this article), as there was apparently shipping wars when it came to Supernatural (see pages 57-60 of "The SPNFamily: Supernatural and the Fandom Like No Other"). Good sourcing going forward may be the Journal of Transformative Works and First Monday for starters, although there are many other reputable publications which have written about shipping. Historyday01 (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
The first few lines aren't really true anymore anymore
"Shipping" isn't really wanting 2 or more people/characters to be together anymore, but just liking them as a couple (or a poly relationship), and sometimes not wanting them to become canon and respecting the canonicity of their relationship.
- Unless you can find some source to support what you saying, your opinion on this is bunk. --Historyday01 (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
To user 148.76.183.132 / jojosrainbowadv
Please stop adding "platonic" to the definition of "shipping". The term does not include friendship or non-romantic relationships. You've already been warned about making edits without reliable sources. Rewriteo (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Edit: "Shipping" does not include non-romantic/non-sexual relationships. Apologies for the exclusion. Rewriteo (talk) 05:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
#stoptheships
stop shipping. Exactly how it sounds 64.17.88.166 (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)