Talk:Filk music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Roots music (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Roots music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to roots, folk and traditional music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Science Fiction  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Ridicule[edit]

I reverted the change about filk ridicule because I can't see how that actually fits into the article. Also, I'm not convinced the information about Photoshop "filk" belongs in the filk music article.

Thoughts? --SarekOfVulcan 23:02, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Generally, I think that the narrower definitions of filk are more useful. Thus, filk is loosely described as the folk music of science-fiction fandom, on topics of broad interest to SF fandom and including both parodies and original material. Where we fall into a trap when defining filk is when we fail to recognize that not everything written by a filker is filk; contrariwise, not everything that is filk is written by a filker. Thus songs such as my own "You Are My Life", although a perfectly fine love song, isn't filk since it lacks any SFnal elements -- but "Love At First Sight" would be filk. And while Weird Al is not a filker, "Yoda" and "The Saga Begins" are filk. --Bill Roper 00:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
It's important to keep a sense of the divergent definitions of filk, so the What is filk? section includes the genre-ish definition, such as yours, as well as the sociological/cultural definition.--SDorn 07:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Rocket Man[edit]

I think inclusion of a link to "Rocket Man" is inappropriate - although it qualifies as "found filk", it is by no means a good example of filk music.
WCFrancis 17:25, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then we get into this huge back and forth about what constitutes filk. For my part, as it's based on a science fiction story, it's as much filk as Bill Roper's "Destroyer" or Brenda Sutton's "In A Gown Too Blue". We don't have that many examples on Wikipedia anyway of other songs. --khaosworks 18:00, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One that I would suggest would be "Hope Eyrie" - possibly linking to the article on Leslie Fish.
- As for defining filk, Bill Sutton once said: "Filk is anything that happens at a filksing."
--WCFrancis 20:53, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome to add it - there isn't an article for it on Wikipedia. --khaosworks 22:19, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree with removing Rocket Man as non-filk. I'd like to have some examples where it's permissible to upload the complete lyrics, which might not be ok for "Hope Eyrie" (Leslie's on Kay Shapero's blanket permission list for non-commercial copying, but the GFDL permits some types of commercial use). I'm thinking of uploading all of Mike Rubin's songs to Wikisource and then pointing to them from the filk article: 1) they are good songs, 2) Mike gave blanket permission for copying as long as attribution is present; 3) Mike died in 1995, and while his songs are on a few personal websites, Wikisource is maybe a more lasting place to preserve them; 4) Mike being dead sidesteps the issue of picking favorites among living filkers. Sound ok? Phr 01:08, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)Phr
I'm not going to object - but you really need to make the copyright situation clear when you do or else you might run up against people who'll start complaining about it. --khaosworks 01:13, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

That Weird Al song[edit]

You know, the one based on American Pie and The Phantom Menace: "My, my, this here Anakin guy..."

As I understand it, Weird Al has stated that "The Saga Begins" is not filk.--SarekOfVulcan 00:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
so what? If "Filk is anything at a filksing, or of a subject interesting to those of filk", then it's filk, right? If the definition of filk is determined to be as loose as anyone wants, so that anything even remotely sci-fi-related can be filk, all one has to do is play it at a filksing and it's filk. If you consider ROcket Man filk, then that Weird Al song sure it. Or your definition is silly. 167.239.215.204 17:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Has Al stated why it isn't filk? Also, Yoda should be considered. --emurphy42 05:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


From what I've heard (third hand at best) Weird Al objects to any of his work being described as filk simply because he considers himself to be a professional and considers filkers to be amateurs. While this distinction is spurious it seems to be his motivation and I doubt that any relevants facts to the contrary will change his mind. He seems to interpret the characterization of his work as "filk" as a disparagement.
A broader issue is whether someone's work should be classified based on objective criteria over their personal objections. Personally in this case I would say that a number of his works are filk whether he likes it or not. He can go sputter off whatever polemics he likes. I would not classify him as a filker (both because he has a body of other work that is not filk, and because he objects to the classification). However, the classification of his work is and should be largely beyond his control. (Just as he shouldn't be able to control other opinions about his work --- demanding that you appreciate or adore it or whatever).JimD 19:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


Hmmm...[edit]

I hate to say this, but this article does come across as mildly exclusivist - along the lines of "if you have to ask, you'll never know". Someone coming across the term, not recognising it, and deciding to look it up on Wikipedia might be a little bit frustrated by this article as it leaves out a lot. For example, which never-published essay saw the original use of the term? (And if it's not known, then how is it known that this was indeed the first usage?) Sources really ought to be cited, even for things like this. Loganberry (Talk) 04:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - I've addressed this. UrbanTerrorist 02:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

It's better now, certainly... but the article still doesn't explain about the "never-published essay". If it was never published, how is it known that it existed in the first place? Presumably either the person who wrote it or someone who read it has written that it did - in which case, details (or a specific footnote) need to be given in the article. Loganberry (Talk) 02:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not certain about this myself - I've been involved in fandom and filking for over 30 years, and I've never heard of the "Never published essy" myself. Of course this doesn't mean that it didn't happen... I will try and contact a couple of people who have been involved longer, and see what I can find out. I know quite a few of the people who were involved in the early history who are still alive. UrbanTerrorist 17:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you; if you could find out something about it, it would be ideal. I'm not doubting the essay's existence; I just don't feel comfortable with a completely unsubstantiated assertion like that. I think the reference should eventually be dropped from the article unless something can be dug up, simply leaving the Karen Kruse Anderson reference. Loganberry (Talk) 22:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Will see what I can do - my daughter is in for major surgery right now, so most of the next month will be a write off. UrbanTerrorist 01:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Got around to it. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a list of links[edit]

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is NOT a list of links. We're going to need to shorten this down drastically.--SarekOfVulcan 00:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, the largest part of that article is a list of "representative filk songs", and the next largest is a list of Filkers, whether or not represented on Wikipedia. I don't think this is a good format for the article, unless you can give me a couple of counter-examples.--SarekOfVulcan 01:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, the article does need filling out, and I have the material, but probably won't be able to do a decent job of it for the next month, my little girl is in hospital - she's hoping to be out in time to see the next Harry Potter movie. UrbanTerrorist 23:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Names[edit]

I'm not sure about the propriety of naming people - I added a lot today, however all of the additions were those who are public figures (i.e. they've either been guests at a con, put out a tape or appeared on one, are a public figure in an organization devoted to filk - such as ConCom, or mentioned in some other way - Kay Shapero runs a news group).

Also, I'm not quite sure what to do about Dr. Jane's listing - I'm told she is undergoing a sex change operation (I haven't seen her for a couple of years), which is going to make meeting her again REALLY strange, but hey, that's her or his choice.

I think this is the safest way to work things. UrbanTerrorist 03:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I would redact the entire list. It serves no useful purpose to the entry, and takes up a huge amount of space. --Autographedcat 17:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not just create new pages for "List of Filkers" and "List of Filk Songs"? There is plenty of precedent for this in Wikipedia. EdStauff 03:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Reasonable idea. I think someone may have done so, but it may be largely empty. Someone who takes that on gets my admiration for the updating it'd require!--SDorn 00:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Filk Songs[edit]

I pulled out my song book tonight and added a bunch of songs, sorted by topic. I tried to pick songs that are representative of the wide range of filk and reasonably well known, however filk does tend to be regional - for example I never get to Southern Cons, and am probably missing a lot of good music, but I think caught the most popular topics.

I remember hearing Scott Snyder? doing a song about a thief, which would be a good add to the Gaming Section. I know that Bill Roper did one that I think was called "One Last Battle" but my copy of "The Grim Roper" expired of old age and I didn't keep the tape. Also there's been several C.S. Lewis filks - I have a copy of "Susan at 18" but not the author's name. There's a fair bit of Dorsai filk out there, I know a Dorsai Irregular or two, will look into that as well.

And that reminds me that I missed adding John Hall to the list of filkers - Bear will kill me <G>.

UrbanTerrorist 04:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

GOOD LORD...[edit]

... no, really.

Organization desperately needed![edit]

I did a bit of shuffling things around this evening to keep the definitional discussion together, as well as pointing out the tensions in the different approaches to defining filk. I also added some documentation, including about Lee Jacobs' essay in the 50s.

There needs to be more reorganization, though, and more fleshing out of filking as a cultural activity, especially the overlaps: the ties to the Dorsai Irregulars in U.S. fandom, links to the SCA, the EFDSS links to British filking, etc. There could be more substantive discussion of the musical traditions that show up in filking. There also needs to be links to MP3 download sites, so readers can get a taste of the best of downloadable filk.

My sense (which may or may not be right) is that a list of filkers' names is less useful to potential readers than external links to filkers' pages, especially those with downloadable audio files.--SDorn 01:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted material from definition section[edit]

For the record, here is the material deleted from the page, because the links to other pages seemed to better capture the range of definitions for filking:

A broadly inclusive definition gives filk as "A form of music not identified by its harmonic, rhythmic, rhyming, cultural, or similarly traditional determining qualities. It defies classification by regional origin or harmonic, melodic, or rhythmic traits; it is -rather- a form of music based upon its lyrical content. Regardless of musical style, filk songs are those that are about or inspired by science fiction, fantasy, horror, science, and/or subjects of interest to fans of speculative fiction." Given the last clause in this definition, a filk song can be about anything. To quote Pegasus award winning southern filker Bill Sutton, "Filk is anything that happens at a filk sing."

The first comes from Debbie Ohi's What is Filk page, I think, and while I've heard Bill say something like the second quotation, I don't remember his using that wording exactly, I couldn't find documentation (not even on Bill's page! he refers to the Interfilk definitional sausage page), and there are similar sentiments captured in the external links. But maybe I'm wrong in that judgment.

Naming Names[edit]

I think, on the whole, that a list of names isn't needed. (And glancing at the list, I see obvious omissions of people who I'd expect to see (for example, only one of a husband and wife) and inclusion of people who are not filkers by any reasonable definition.

Links to any pages of people named or included would be far more useful and appropriate.

A new Wikipedia category, "Filkers," has been created.Shsilver 13:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it.--SDorn 07:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Category:Filkers.Shsilver 12:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, I've been away (and sick also) for a while. Just who was it who was on the list who weren't filkers? UrbanTerrorist 04:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
That was me who deleted the list.--SDorn 07:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of titles and names[edit]

The list of internal Wikipedia links corresponding to individual song titles and filkers seemed inappropriate for Wikipedia, when the vast majority of names had no pages and probably never will, especially given the advice in the five pillars of Wikipedia that Wikipedia is not "a grouping of links (whether internal or external)." In the next few days, I'll add selected links to external websites and suggestions for searching for individual filkers. --SDorn 00:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Two deleted links noted here (with the reasoning in parentheses):

  • Harry Potter filks (too idiosyncratic—there are many such partial collections, and they tend to go out of date pretty quickly. Maureen O'Brien's attempt to collect online filk was wonderful, but it is now several years out of date)
  • lyrics collection (no collector description, no evidence of comprehensiveness, and an opt-out approach towards artists' rights—it is not clear that the collector has the rights to be publishing the lyrics of all the songs listed on the web site)

--SDorn 01:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Another pruned bit: In recent years, the genre has given rise to such subgenres as anifilk, a song (usually comedic in nature) written about anime. Some anifilk artists are Jared Claxon and Luke Ski. Subgenres are a matter of considerable opinion, and we could be headed into another laundry-list... --SDorn 01:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

NESFA removed from key internal links (the See also section) (though others can argue!) because that list is best trimmed to a few entries that casual readers would find clearly connected to the topic to help provide context.--SDorn 06:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

What needs fleshing out (I think)[edit]

"Styles and Subjects" needs something that is more rounded and in an authoritative, encyclopedia-like voice.

"An Ethnomusicological/Cultural Perspective" might be renamed "Community" (the content would be the same, I think) and could discuss the practices of filking as a social network of listeners, performers, and creators who see textual and musical poaching as well as creation as legitimate acts of community. There should be a more complete discussion of the ties between the Dorsai Irregulars and filking, as well as the overlaps and subtle differences between filking, SCA bard activities, Dr. Demento fans, and the like. (This partly captures the sentiment of Filker0, whose comment on this point was lost.) --SDorn 02:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This might be straying into original research. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 02:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Solomon's masters thesis already exists, and there are plenty of writings about the filk community. Ethnomusicology may just be my academic wrapper on that. --SDorn 04:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Others have pointed out that Sally and Barry Childs-Helton have already written/talked about filking as an object of ethnomusicology. --SDorn 14:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
That section should also mention the phenomenon of Folk Musicians (Carla Ulbrich, Joe Giacoio, et alia) finding filk and discovering that, whoa nelly, here's an actual living ORAL TRADITION, whee fun yay let me join!! Etc. --EloiseMason 16:56, 2/14/06

Holding place for cultural-discussion links[edit]

  • Solomon H. Davidoff, "Filk:" A Study of Shared Musical Traditions and Related Phenomena among Fan Groups (M.A. thesis, Bowling Green State University, 1996). Bowling Green State University Thesis 6673. (At BGSU, call no. LD 4191 O6 No 6673.)
  • Henry Jenkins, Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture (New York: Routledge, 1992), Chapter 8: "'Strangers No More We Sing': Filk Music, Folk Culture, and the Fan Community."
  • Roger D. Launius, "Got Filk? Lament For Apollo In Modern Science Fiction Folk Music" 5th International Astronautical Congress 2004; Vancouver; Canada; 4-8 Oct. 2004. pp. 1-11. abstract

--SDorn 12:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The Launius link is dead, but this one works: http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.IAC-04-IAA.6.16.1.06
--Thnidu (talk) 04:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Deleted links[edit]

Links deleted because (I think!) they don't give a clear sense of what filk is if someone comes across them:

This is a tough judgment call in some cases, but my best judgment is that the list of download links needs to be pretty slim and give casual surfers a very good idea of what filk is rather than trying to be compleatist. There are only two artists currently named in the article. One is there (Ookla the Mok) as an exception to the general acoustic-vocal pattern of filking, and the other (Tom Smith) has a web site with a range that really does, truly represent filk (in the sense of, if this is the one website that a casual browser comes across, will I be comfortable that this artist is representing filk?). All the other download links are to multi-artist collections. (Definitely need feedback here on judgment call.)--SDorn 20:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Who is Russell Frushtick?[edit]

I've removed the line:

Legendary filmmaker Russell Frushtick contributed the first known filk song, for an animated program called, Radtke's Heroes.

This appears to be spurious. There is no listing at IMDB for Russell Frushtick, no listing for a movie called "Radtke's Hereos", and no supporting evidence at Google. There is however a video game reviewer named Russell Frushtick.

Katy's explanation (moved here for later discussion): Moved the paragraph " Legendary filmmaker Russell Frushtick contributed the first known filk song, for an animated program called, Radtke's Heroes." to "History" (did anyone hear about this?)--SDorn 07:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Katy: what's the German of Radtke's Heroes?--SDorn 07:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Besides - no one now knows who wrote the first Filk song. It appears that we can probably blame the Futurians for it (like so many other things) but since the perpetrators have mostly left us for the "Great Filk Sing in the Sky" we'll never know.
UrbanTerrorist 05:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the deletion by UrbanTerrorist. --SDorn 02:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yikes! Sherman, next time read everything in the changes list, all right? I'd have no problem mentioning Frushtick, but need a bit more in context (maybe the German for the program title, at least)?--SDorn 07:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

As already mentioned to Sherman - it wasn't me who put that paragraph *in* ... I just moved it from the very first paragraph to "History", because I thought, if it had to be in there at all, that was the better place. It had been put in on 18th January by someone with IP 216.105.163.3

--Katyhh, 15 February 2006

[Ivan Vorpatril drawl] Y'know... [/Ivan Vorpatril drawl] ... "Frühstück" is German for "breakfast", and an English speaker who can't manage the "ü" sound is likely to turn it into "Frushtick". So I'd be very surprised if that insertion was ever anything more than a joke, which here would count as a type of vandalism. --Dr. Whom: Consulting Linguist, Grammarian, Orthoëpist, and Philological Busybody (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

History[edit]

I've gone over the history section again - it seemed to me to be somewhat out of order, and it was showing the evidence of muliple edits by mulitple editors. I think it's now pretty straight, but hey, it's 11:00 PM on a Saturday night and I had to get up for work today, so I missed some beauty sleep (and at nearly 50 I REALLY need it).

One major change is I moved the Futurians to the top as the first recorded writers of filk - to my best knowledge no one has managed to come up with anything written earlier than 1940, so they get the honor of being first.

Hmmn... yes, the prior version is not strictly chronological, because the first paragraph in the section is an introduction, emphasizing the larger theme of filk as a cultural phenomenon. Strict chronology is pretty dry. What do other folks think? --SDorn 06:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The intro should be covered in the introduction to the article in my opinion.
UrbanTerrorist 23:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There may be some disagreement about the changes that lead to "Filk" specific conventions, however it is accurate, in other words I witnessed much of it, including the Con Chair who was willing to give us the men's washroom. Since I never did figure out what Ian actually liked, I never managed to get even with him over that - but I've got a long memory and I'll get him sooner or later!

The mention of Ad Astra seems idiosyncratic. On that basis, we could identify a number of semi-hostile (joking?) reactions to filk, from Minnesota to ... well, anywhere. I don't know if Solomon Davidoff's masters thesis discusses that part of oral history, but it would be the logical source to go for such detail. I'm not really sure it belongs, though, because it seems more anecdotal than analytical.
OK, I'll try a rewrite on that section, later tonight.
UrbanTerrorist 23:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Is there some documentation of the extensiveness of housefilks? I know they exist at least sporadically but doubt that there's sufficient justification to say they exist in most areas, as in the current version.
Hum - well I know they are common in the Toronto area - we have at least one a month. As to whether any doumentation exists, well there's a mailing list, but I don't know that anyone archives all the messages.
UrbanTerrorist 23:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Further thought--maybe the discussion of housefilks belongs to the ethnomusicology section.--SDorn 06:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll leave this version in place for a little while, to see if anyone responds to these issues. --SDorn 06:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

To UrbanTerrorist: Rich Brown's freemars.org filk calendar used to be a great place to go for that, but he had something happen and took it down. I hear he's planning on putting it back up, but know no details. --EloiseMason 23:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Given D'Glenn Arthur's suggestion of a timeline and other comments on LJ, I've restored the earlier introduction and created a draft timeline below. --SDorn 19:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Greatest need right now: material on 1940s and early 1950s; other stuff from 1970s; events, especially history, outside North America.--SDorn 19:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we really need feedback from outside of North America, and also from the older fen. I don't know how lucky we will be with the thirties, but there should be a few of us from the forties, fifties and sixties still around. Urbanterrorist 01:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have contact information for Karen Anderson (who I spoke to at Consonance and who would be delighted to answer questions on things like Poul and Gordy's contributions to filking from their Mpls days); I also have contact info for Juanita Coulson who would likely also answer a lot of your historical questions. If you want material on the Futurians and filk, you should try speaking to Fred Pohl who is in the Chicago area. I can scare up his contact info if you're serious about this.Bill Roper 14:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Draft timeline[edit]

This is a draft of a timeline (right now, format seriously problematic). Please contribute to this (check Help:EasyTimeline syntax for help) and when it looks decent and has 5-10 entries, I'll shift it into the main article.--SDorn 13:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

--SDorn 13:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh blast. Adding a second text line messes everything up. Help!--SDorn 00:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

How does this sample look, Sherman? I have not yet read TFM to know how to make it behave more like I want, but this one will let you enter multiple items.


FilkerGEM 03:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice! --SDorn 03:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, very nice, but it cuts off the right hand side, how do we fix that? Also is it possible to have multiple lines per year, some years may have more than one occurence. Also I've changed font size to medium - was too small for me to read before! UrbanTerrorist 02:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I have not really had time to work on it, but check out http://newped2.auckland.ac.nz/exe/exe/timeline/form.html for a graphical interface to EasyTimeLine's stuff. I was ablt to make a much-improved version, which I want to work on more before uploading it. The issue has to do with absolute and relative positioning - changing the font size changes how much is cut off. FilkerGEM 17 April 2006


swapped History and Styles & Subjects sections[edit]

I swapped the "History" and "Styles and Subjects" sections. I felt that for someone who wasn't already familiar with filk, the Styles and Subjects section would be more relevant and interesting, and thus should come first.

Makes sense to me. --SDorn 00:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Defining filk as parody[edit]

"Lkjhgfdsa" has added the line "Filk can also be a parody of a preexisting song." Obviously this opens a perennial can of worms. In any event, this proposed definition is misformulated, whether one accepts its premise or not; filk (as opposed to "a filk song") is not "a parody" of any particular song.

For now I'll back this change out. We should have some discussion on whether the "filk = parody" idea merits discussion in the definition section. GMcGath 10:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The songfic article states very clearly filks are usually parodies. Perhaps it is in need of edit?--Lkjhgfdsa 23:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

My dear I have written quite a few songs, and only two of them were parodies. I will admit that this is mostly because I am such a lousey guitar player that learning someone else's song is too difficult and time consuming <GRIN>. However a lot of filkers I know HATE parodies. I will edit the Songfic article. UrbanTerrorist 02:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, I fixed that, and added a note in the Songfic discussion page. UrbanTerrorist 03:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Culture bit[edit]

User:EdStauff added a paragraph some weeks ago that I just edited to trim the reference to unspecified filkers who were nurtured from novice to polished. Are there any specific examples that might be used to add that in? My brain's running low on oil this afternoon... --SDorn 17:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent additions[edit]

Looks like the Brobdingnagian Bards have been by, with two new links. The link to their own site is probably OK, as they do some filk, but I've deleted the link to Mage Records, as they don't even mention filk on their home page, and their connection to filk through the Bards is very attenuated compared to the other publishers listed.

If others disagree, it can be put back. GMcGath 13:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Link to Google[edit]

Admittedly I am not fully aware of the practices for articles like this, but is it really necessary to have a link to the google search for filk+mp3? I'll leave it in for now, but I think it ought to be removed. Sopoforic 22:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted it; we've got plenty of real links without adding Google searches. It can always be put back, of course. GMcGath 16:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
That's fine with me. --SDorn 12:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

"Trekkies" film[edit]

I removed the reference to *Trekkies* because, unless someone can explain why it's critically important, I'm not sure it makes sense to include minor nonfiction references to filk. There are also the occasional news story about filk (e.g., about the 2006 Consonance, if I remember correctly), but I don't think that every reference needs to be in a Wikipedia entry. Since I haven't seen the film, I'll be happy to learn if my supposition is wrong and if it was a substantive segment with interesting insight. --SDorn 12:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Merger[edit]

Not directly relevant to this article, but it seems like the best place to mention it. I've suggested a merger of the Steve Macdonald and WorlDream articles. Discussion can happen on the talk pages of either of those articles. GMcGath 00:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Maureen O'Brien's site: link deleted back[edit]

Deleted the link, because the whole site is now 404.

If that's temporary, feel free to put it back! -- Aleksej S.

Thanks. Luna Santin 12:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It turns out that the site has been relocated in 2005, and is now at http://suburbanbanshee.net/ . It's still too old (a lot of 404s), though it might make sense to check if http://suburbanbanshee.net/filk/index.html is still good enough. AVRS 18:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Pruning external links[edit]

Someone's added a cleanup tag expressing concern about the external links. While most of them are of good quality, it can certainly be argued that the sheer quantity violates the guideline on external links that "External links should be used sparingly and kept to a minimum."

Here are some of my thoughts, in sequence.

The "Filking culture and history" links can be reduced. The list of conventions should be kept, but perhaps it should get its own article. Audio files -- I've always been a bit uneasy about listing those which require registration. Maybe not for any good reason. Recording companies and retailers -- I'd hate to cut those out. Community: Maybe that can be reluctantly eliminated. Awards and funds: Keep. Miscellaneous: Most of those could reluctantly be cut. With the exception of a few low-quality links, I don't like removing anything, but as the guidelines say, this shouldn't be a directory. Comments? GMcGath 20:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Both DAG Productions and Firebird Arts and Music are listed twice. I don't know where the best place for them is, but someone should pick a place and cut the dupes. -Sopoforic 06:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I've done that. I also dropped two links to German-language sites, per the guidelines; best that they should be cut by the hand of a friend. :) GMcGath 12:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
The DAG Productions link to a live feed is back. Is there a reason to keep that, as opposed to either listing others, noting the phenomenon with the other high-tech arrangements, or just deleting it? --SDorn 20:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Tregoweth removed all but one of the external links, and I put most of them back. I'll go through and cut most of them later after checking into them, since the link section really is far too large. If anyone has links they think should definitely stay, make a case here. I plan to keep the conventions at the least, although it may be better to move them into the body of the article somewhere. Other ideas are welcome. --Sopoforic 09:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed (another!) duplicate link to DAG Productions. I also removed the links to Tom Smith Online and the Brobdingnagian Bards site since both of these have their own articles and are listed in Category:Filkers already. I'll be removing more presently. --Sopoforic 09:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed several links that were already present in more appropriate places in the body of the article, and changed a couple of the external links to citations, since that's clearly what they were meant to be. I'm tempted just to cut completely the list of specialty retailers and publishers, although it might be appropriate to write somethign about them (the publishers, at least) in the article. --Sopoforic 09:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Exams prevented me from finishing pruning these, and Tregoweth removed the whole external links section again. This is correct, really, so I've only restored the conventions section (moved outside of external links, since it didn't really belong there) and a few links which seemed most valuable to me. What needs to be done is to include those things that are notable in the article--probably a small section about the existence of specialty publishers and such, with links to prominent ones, wouldn't be amiss, if they are really important. My unfortunate ignorance of the subject prevents me from adding such a thing myself at this time, so I'll leave them out until I get more time to research, or someone else comes along. --Sopoforic 11:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I see it's been half of a year since this was discussed, so this may be immaterial, but amongst other things the rec.music.filk FAQ (which is already linked to) does have a list of purveyors and publishers and similar things, so they probably don't need to be found in the article. Anansii 07:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice to have footnote references all over the text, so statements cannot be called unsourced, and it is easier to translate knowing that everything is cited. Many to all of the external links can then be turned into footnotes. --AVRS 20:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Editing odd stuff[edit]

Removed 'circular-reasoning' paragraph added by FroggySkunthorpe. The point was made in the section that this is a cultural definition, not one based on strict textual logic. --SDorn 20:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The Circle[edit]

One important thing this article is missing is a more detailed description of the Filk Circle, its etiquette, and its various forms (Bardic, Chaos, Token Bardic, etc.). We've got the What, Where, Why, and When, but we're missing the How. The How is: In a filk circle!

I was hoping to simply link to an article on the Bardic Circle, but alas, such an article does not seem to exist on Wikipedia. Although I personally have never participated in a Bardic Circle outside of Filk, I'm told that they exist, and that filk circles are a derivation of that existing form.

In the past, I could have sworn I'd seen some extensive references on the web about the proper etiquette of a Filk circle. I seem to recall a good one written by Steve Macdonald a long time ago, but I can't seem to find it now. And searching Debbie Ohi's Filk Faq for the word "Circle" doesn't result in any main headline articles about the Circle specifically.

Clearly this is something that needs attention. I also think it deserves its own section heading the in main article. I'll even write it myself if no one else steps up.

Comments? Tfabris (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No one else stepping up? I'll give it a shot.Tfabris (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I will confess that I'm unsure that belongs in the article; it seems like a pretty big chunk. Maybe separate it out into another article? --SDorn (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sherman, I see your point, and I understand what you mean. It certainly is a large chunk. My fear, however, is that if it gets separated into its own article, then that the article will get deleted as being less relevant than the main Filk article itself. Also, the chunk in question depends heavily on the main Filk article to which it belongs, and might not really stand well on its own. Tfabris (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Recording[edit]

Should we add a section on recorded filk? I think there's enough out there to justify a discussion. (Besides, it's disappointing to see the only reference to "Divine Intervention (album)" call up an album by Slayer.) Dan ad nauseam (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


I agree, Dan. Want to take a stab at it (since I did all the work for Filk Circle)? Tfabris (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Donald Swann and The Road Goes Ever On[edit]

Why is Donald Swann's song cycle not classified as filk? It would seem to me that it was some of the first filk created? Ron (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if writing music for songs written as part of a novel qualifies as filk, unless Swann joined the filk community and treated them as filk. The college library near my house had that album, and I know I checked it out at least once. :-) Rather Schubertian, wasn't it?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. It's generally accepted that filk musicians and filk songs are self-identified, meaning the person says "I am a filker" or "this song that I wrote is a filk song". Just because a piece of music is about a sci-fi or fantasy topic doesn't automatically qualify it as filk music. Even Jeff Wayne's The War of the Worlds doesn't qualify as filk music unless Jeff says so. Anything originating outside of the filk community and subsequently embraced by its members can be considered "found filk". Tfabris (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Swann is a professional musician from outside the continuous community of fandom. While some of his works have been treated as "found filk" (like, say, much of Tom Lehrer and Weird Al, and quite a bit of Peter Schikele), he was never part of the cultural tradition from which filking arose. His stuff is too art songy for my taste (I'm a more folk-music type); but that's purely personal taste. (And as far as "first"? No way; some of Poul Anderson's early stuff long predates Swann.) --Orange Mike | Talk 19:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

List of filk conventions[edit]

This struck me as too close to a list of external links, which is generally frowned upon, so I deleted the whole section. Anybody want to try to convince me I'm wrong? (Bonus points for doing it in iambic pentameter. :-) ) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the list of Filk conventions is extremely important. For starters, it's the only place I know of where there's a comprehensive, accurate, and community-updated list of all the cons. There are other lists, but they don't have the capability of being constantly updated by the filk community as a whole, so they are frequently out of date. Next, the list serves as a cite for the article; by listing current conventions, it shows that the information in the article about Filk cons is current and is describing current events. The list also gives accurate details about the most important aspect of the Filk community, as opposed to a general statement of "there are cons". For many filkers (myself included), these conventions are among the most important events in their lives, and this level of importance should be reflected by giving the cons a prominent spot in the article. Finally, if your problem is that it's just a list of external links, then remove the links and just put the names. Tfabris (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Tfabris. Filk-conventions are becoming increasingly important both within the filk community and as an introduction for the filk-curious. Removing the entire section is excessive. Removing the links would make the list less immediately useful, but it at least provides basic information that readers can use to search out more information on their own using a search engine. I would suggest adding separate wikipedia entries for each filk convention, but these tend not to be noticed by books and news media, hence finding "acceptable" cites could prove difficult. Hiddenriver (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Tell me about it -- I had to fight two deletion attempts on Tom Smith's article, mostly for lack of cites. OVFF has its own article (which badly needs expansion); if you can find independent references for another of the cons, creating the article would be great, and make it easier to link in here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of cites, it's on my to-do list to backfill a bunch of cites for the Filk Circle section. I'll get to it soon. 66.195.191.20 (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
What about a completely separate page for filk conventions, one which *includes* OVFF? Just roll OVFF into the Filk Convention page, and include the other conventions. Gundo (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
My vote's with Gundo, who's no rank beginner
Like many here posting, no Tom, Dick or amateur
Let's all just agree, his solution's a winner
With no need for lim'rick...
....or iambic pentameter.
--FleetfootMike (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Come on, come on, this reference was here
To show the places Filk music is played
So could we make no fuss and just adhere
This list that previously was hence displayed ;o)


As with so many subgenres
You'll find that filkers often are
Considered lesser parts of larger sf cons
To remedy this dimmer light
They play all day and sing all night
At gatherings that focus only on their songs
These cons are major fannish foci,
Not just s-f music loci --
They're a growing part of filkish lore
A wiki should describe in full
Its subject, without any bull
And so the conlist ought to be restored.
The arguments for retention fall into two categories so far: "I like it" and "It's useful". Both of these appear in the article Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions! The problem is that the list was a violation of one of the arguments that does matter here, namely that "Wikipedia is not a directory"! Wikipedia is a reference work; this article is an article explaining what filk music is, not a place in which to keep your directory of filk cons. (Hey, I'm wearing my admin hat here, not my "old fart filker who had a minor song in the HOPSFA Hymnal" hat.) Sarek's decision, while painful, was righteous. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Which is why I'm wondering if rather than a generic list of cons, an entirely separate article might be the way to go. Gundo (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
A separate entry for filk conventions is reasonable. The structure is already set under furry fandom, where a mention of several conventions is made in the main entry, and a separate entry for conventions itself exists and is linked. Why not do it that way for filk, as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.201.171 (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I go along with what tfabris says
since he's a BNF (a Big Name Filker)
and knows a lot about these sorts of things.
If you're concerned about external links,
remove the links and put them in the footnotes,
but please, do not expunge the list entirely.
(Do I get points for iambic pentameter,
although my post is just six lines of "ditto"?)
Scriptwriter (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is a reference work;", you say, OrangeMike. What better reference than listing the places where Filkers do what they do? To expunge the list would be the same as writing a Wikipedia article about US Holidays without giving the dates of the holidays, or writing an article about the periodic table without listing the actual elements in the table. Filk cons are the largest and most publicly-visible thing that Filkers do. They are the nexuses (nexii?) of the community. They are factual details that belong there as support for the article.66.195.191.20 (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
A list of filk conventions seems to me to clearly meet, and in fact to be a perfect example of, the standards of Wikipedia:Embedded list. In Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is Not, under "Wikipedia is not a directory", I find a list of seven kinds of lists that should not appear in Wikipedia articles. This list is not any one of those. Is your complaint that the list contained URLs? (I am at a bit of a disadvantage here; I can't look at the list to see if it contained URLs because it isn't there any more.) Indeed, it would be consistent with Wikipedia usage for any URLs to be placed in the External Links section.
To me, the list you deleted was the most useful part of the article. According to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: 'There are some times when "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful". Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader.'
I recommend that you restore the list of filk conventions, removing any URLs.
Thiesen (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Sure you can look at it. Hit the "previous revision" link here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Right, I should have remembered that I could do that. Clearly, I haven't done enough editing lately. Looking at the old version confirms my opinion that you should restore the list, removing the URLs. Thiesen (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Why should the URLs be removed? Unlike government, business, or academic organizations, cons are run by volunteers, and their committees, locations, and structures can change, even wildly, from year to year. They have no fixed postal addresses or phone numbers. If you want information on a con -- including the recent and upcoming versions of an ongoing con -- there is in general no better place to look than the con's website. Thiesen, your post (18:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)) is the first mention of URLs on this discussion page. Why take them out?
I believe SarekOfVulcan was talking about URLs when he wrote "This struck me as too close to a list of external links". I could be wrong. See Wikipedia:External links. Thiesen (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me an article on filk
Which does not mention or discuss the cons
Devoted fully to pure filk's pursuit
Is incomplete as filk's new era dawns.
The filk cons mark the evolution clear
Of filk from fringe to wholeness all its own;
No longer some poor cousin of SF,
The world of filk is free to stand alone.
'Tis therefore right and proper to describe
And list the cons which circumscribe filk's art
For though filk songs are what the filkers craft
Filk cons are where you'll find all filkdom's heart.
Thus do I say -- treat cons not as a list
But as a keystone that helps filk exist.
--John C. Bunnell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.9.74 (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I would vote to keep the list here until we get a separate page on filk conventions. filceolaire (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

So far, I see the following arguments against the list, and I believe they are all refutable:

  • "Wikipedia is not a directory": We all agree that removing the URL links from the table is fine, as long as the names of the filk cons continue to be listed. But even if left the URLs in, the "Wikipedia is not a directory" guideline lists six very specific directory-type things that our list clearly does not fall under. The guideline is to prevent people from putting in things that are irrelevant; our list is quite relevant.
  • "It's Useful": The Wikipedia guidelines regarding "It's useful" are very clear that usefulness can be a valid reason for inclusion, as long as common sense is used with regard to appropriateness. I believe we've successfully argued for that here, as well as demonstrated the usefulness.
  • "I like it": Based on reading the Wikipedia guidelines, I don't believe anyone here has made the type of "I like it" argument that's being shown there. We're not saying, "dude these filk cons are awesome," we're saying that the Filk cons are a critcally important core part of the Filk experience and should be given an appropriate place in the article.
  • "Wikipedia is a reference work": The list is an important part of the reference work, and without the list, it would be an incomplete reference.

So what do you say, OrangeMike and SarekOfVulcan? Can we put it back?Tfabris (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm still not convinced, but I'm hardly going to edit war to keep it out. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
SarekOfVulcan's comment seems to be a strong hint that if someone were to replace the list of filk conventions, he would not remove it again. I will resurrect the list unless I see further comments urging me not to do so. Thiesen (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd really strongly prefer the separate list move, rather than just adding it back into this article. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
It will be a few more days before I can get around to this. Thiesen (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd be more comfortable with a separate list of filk conventions. I also wish to express my strong belief that filk conventions, while nice, are not the heart of filk. That will be found at every regular SF con, every local club meeting, every housefilk and APA collation, and wherever else fen band From Argo together and shatter the rules of harmony and scansion: be it silly or ose; parody or straight; folk or rock or operatic; circular or choral or just a single voice soaring wistfully toward Hope Eyrie. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Mike or Sarek, since you guys seem to be more in-tune with Wikipedia standards and practices than the rest of us, could you please take it upon yourselves to generate a correctly-styled list of filk conventions and link it from our main article? (Using the data from our list that was deleted from this article of course.) Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfabris (talkcontribs) 21:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a suggestion of a sort. It comes in multiple parts.

  • 1 We take Sarek of Vulcan, Tar & Feather him, her, or it, and ride him out of town on a rail.
  • 2 If someone is willing to do some extra editing work, I am willing to give them editor access to Filk Culture. I had meant to get the site up before this, however due to my physical condition, and some family issues (that were bad enough that I nearly started smoking again, and also nearly got charged with manslaughter) I haven't gotten around to doing anything. If some people were to volunteer to help out, it would be great. We aren't talking a lot of work. If 10 or 15 people would each commit to writing a 1000 word article every two weeks, that would be more than enough to get things rolling, and once things are rolling, I suspect other people would step in to help. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 06:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Scholarly utility[edit]

I am a fan and a filker, but if my interest in this page were confined to that I would have nothing to add to this discussion. However, I am also a linguistic researcher. I am writing a paper on the names of cons, both gencons and cons with more specific focus, which has been accepted for presentation at the upcoming Annual Meeting of the American Name Society. I have found Wikipedia's con lists extremely useful in gathering data on cons, often providing me with pointers I haven't found anywhere else. I emphatically urge that the con lists not be deleted. Thnidu (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Prospective changes[edit]

I'm new here, so please bear with me.

1. Shouldn't the section on the Pegasus Awards more properly belong on the Ohio Valley Filk Fest page?

2. I see that the section on the filk circle in particular is tagged, "This section does not cite any references or sources." This section contains information which would be useful to newcomers, and is widely known within the community. But how can one cite references for that kind of information? HScrimgeour (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Easy Howard. Sit yourself down, and write an article. I'll publish it on Filk Culture and we now have a verifiable link, and everyone is happy. When will you make your submission? Warning. I am the editor from hell. Ask Janet Morris. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 06:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Filk Culture would not be regarded as a reliable source. This is not to disparage what you are trying to do with it. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

This article does not use the word "contrafactum"[edit]

And I can only assume it is from a lack of knowledge of said word (it essentially means "leaving the music intact and changing the text"), rather than any intentional choice. I realize surely not ALL filk music falls under the broad heading of contrafactum, but surely enough does for it to be an important term to use for the reader to better understand the genre? Well, for the reader with an extensive knowledge of musical terms, anyway. 71.217.20.94 (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The term contrafactum is rather esoteric (except for music majors, anyway); but nobody's going to denounce you if you use the word in an otherwise-unexceptionable edit. Be sure to wikilink it. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

What actually is the definition?[edit]

From the article: "Filk has been defined as folk music, usually with a science fiction or fantasy theme, but this definition is not exact. Filkers have been known to write filk songs about a variety of topics, including but not limited to tangentially related topics such as computers and cats."

And folk musicians write jazz - that doesn't make it folk music.

Yet the article seems to suggest that certain songs about cats are filk. If so, what is left that defines filk? --Chriswaterguy talk 13:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Cultural context, basically. Filkers are a subset of science fiction fandom; and certain filk-music writers who are part of that community and write song after song about SF and fantasy subjects, have also been known to write about cats and computers and Wile E. Coyote, and to perform and publish those songs in a fannish/filk context. It may be deemed analogous to the way that a perfectly-typical science fiction fanzine may contain an article about the author's military service, or the canonical triad: cats, Jewish minutiae, and chocolate, without ceasing thereby to be regarded as a science fiction fanzine. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Sure - but that article about chocolate isn't science fiction just because it's in a science-fiction context. The sentence above, "Filkers have been known to write filk songs about..." implies that these other songs about cats etc are also filk - only needs a slight change, which I'd make except that I'm not sure if I've understood correctly.. --Chriswaterguy talk 04:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Many of us (filkers) regard those as filk. See the Performer definition in the article.
@Chriswaterguy: The question that you used to title this section, "What actually is the definition?", presupposes that there is a single uncontroversial definition -- like asking "Who holds the rights to the Kellogg's logo signature?" But it's not comparable. See any or all of the references for definitions of filk. There's no authority to define "filk", or "blues" for that matter. Sure, there are people who are certain that their definition is correct and anything else is wrong, but that doesn't make them right. --Thnidu (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
@Thnidu: "presupposes that there is a single uncontroversial definition" - okay, but that's not my intent. There are plenty of articles where differing definitions are described, which is fine. In this case I don't see any coherent definition. I don't know whether it's a musical or a cultural phenomenon, but the currently wording seems fairly circular - more or less saying that filk music is music by filkers (mostly but not entirely fandom-related) and filkers are people into filk music.
(This is my first experience of the {{ping}} in Wikipedia comments, and I have to say it's pretty awesome.) --Chriswaterguy talk 05:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
@Chriswaterguy: Fair enough. I'll break the circle, or at least crack it: Filk music is, most basically, music by people who identify as filkers. That needs at least the amendment … that they consider filk, so I don't claim some filker's classical symphony as filk.
That said, filk is not a genre. You may hear in a single filk circle performances that can be called folk (trad.), folk (modern), pop, rock, heavy metal, classical, Romantic... you name it. See... Oh, buggery and goddamn! botheration! My website has gone 404! ... OK, here's the Google cached copy of my Definition of Filk. – This, at any rate, is roughly my definition, a sociological rather than musicological one. --Thnidu (talk) 03:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
@Thnidu: Okay, that's a cracking of the circle, at least - I still find it somewhat unsatisfying, but at least it's been/being addressed. I only found myself here by accident, though, so now's a good time to say thanks & goodbye, & leave you with it. Cheers. --Chriswaterguy talk 23:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Pegasus Award[edit]

We had a bit of a weird situation, in which the "Pegasus Award" redirected to this page, but a separate stand-alone page listed the award-winners. The convention in award articles is for a page to be titled based on the award, and to include internal lists of award-winners as appropriate. So, I renamed the "list of Pegasus Award winners" to simply be "Pegasus Award", and copied over the descriptive content from this article to the Pegasus Award page. If someone can prune the Pegasus Award content here down to a briefer description, great; in the meantime, there's some redundancy on the two pages. --Lquilter (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

References[edit]

I've just added a bunch of references, enough IMHO to warrant taking down the tags:


Discussed one by one below.


The documentation of that template (which redirects to Template:Fanpov) says

This template will add tagged articles to Category:Articles with a promotional tone, or a dated subcategory thereof.

I'd say it is meant for articles that seem to be written from the POV of a fan of the subject of the article, like a page about Buffy the Vampire Slayer that's all gushy and not at all encyclopedic. That's a different kind of "fan".


I think I've done that with the refs I've added. There are still a couple of "citation neededs", but I've done my bit for tonight.


Like, which ones? I see no problem here.


If you add a comment here and want me to reply, please ping me. --Thnidu (talk) 05:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)