From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I would like to write a external link to our fanzinoteca in Spain:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


Regarding "punkzine"

Punkzine has not, is not and probably never will be a widely used to term to describe punk rock fanzines. Punk zine, as two words, is a different matter altogether and perfectly acceptable. Punkzine as a neologism is not.


  • punkzine - 2030 hits on google
  • "punk zine" (two words, not one, quoted search) - 3,990 hits on google
  • punk zine (two words, unquoted) - 180,000 hits on google

And I do know what I'm talking about, maintaining one of the largest punk zine libraries on the east coast (dating from 1976 to the present).

See my reply at Talk:Punkzine quercus robur 00:24, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

while i am in no position to disagree with the statement, the google stats are not valid evidence. A two word term will always garner more hits than a compound, and the same is true for an unquoted or quoted term.

Paul Williams[edit]

I wonder whether Paul Williams' "Crawdaddy!" belongs in the Fanzine category. I believe he also came out of SF fandom, but at some point early on, "Crawdaddy!" became a "prozine." My sense (and I'm not an expert on this) is that was always his intention. Even though it started out as a homemade mimeo zine from a teenager, he initially sent it to potential advertisers, with talk of national distribution. There's no doubt that "Crawdaddy!" is important in the history of rock journalism, but if it is to be listed as a fanzine, its move into prozine status, at which point it could no longer be called a fanzine, should be described. Also, links to Paul Williams(editor) and Crawdaddy!(magazine) need to be created--the link now sends you to Crayfish.

problems with recent "sophisticating" of the history[edit]

Recent edits that claimed to be "correcting and sophisticating" the piece have inserted problems that need to be addressed. The origins of fanzines have been rewritten, and the original fanzines are now claimed to be 19th century amateur literary publications. If true, this claim needs substantiation--some specifics about these publications, and some clarification as to why those publications count as fanzines (as opposed to precursors to fanzines). Since the concept of fanzine didn't occur until sixty-five years after those amateur literary pubications were first produced, and since the concept was not, to my knowledge, applied to those early apas when it did appear (please feel free to correct me with some citations), this seems like dubious history. I'm not an expert here: if there are historians who agree that those were the first fanzines, we should report that. Otherwise, we can mention those as early examples of amateur presses, but talk about "fanzines" as a development within SF fandom in the 1930s, which is what every account that I've ever come across has stated.

Another change to the definition was introduced in that edit, changing the subject matter of fanzines from "a particular cultural phenomena (such as a literary genre or type of music)" to "a particular subject." Thus, fanzines can apparently be devoted to gardening, cancer treatments, macroeconomics, etc. I don't think this is accurate: while there may indeed be amateur publications discussing such topics, a fanzine, in my view, needs to be connected to a community of devotees of a cultural form. BTfromLA 2 July 2005 18:10 (UTC)

Fanatic & Fantasy[edit]

many times catch phrases have a dual purpose / meaning.. im not sure about this but i would be willing to make a good guess that fanzine not only implies a magaZINE created by a "FAN"atic but also a "FAN"tasy publication. im putting this in the discussion section in the off chance that someone with sources might be able to back it up. at the very least, its a little observation 07:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't that imply that "a fan" is "a fantasy"? Anyway this is the first time I have heard about that interpretation... 12:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, if you read the original article in which the term was introduced, that theory is totally unsupportable. The distinction was purely between pro and fan; nothing else. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Was Punk Magazine a fanzine?[edit]

I think it wasn't a fanzine, so I removed the paragraph about it. My reasoning: right from the start, it was professionally printed, carried advertising, and had national newsstand distribution. These seem to be contrary to any definition of fanzine of which I'm aware. BTfromLA 00:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not Punk was a fanzine (and we could probably endlessly debate whether some of the other zines mentioned, which branched out and among other things, went into the business of putting out records, were strictly fanzines) is a good question. In the science fiction fan world, there's something called a "semi-prozine" (i.e. Locus); Punk may very well fall into that category. A reference to it was left in the article, however, and it was totally wrong, so I corrected it. MarkVolundNYC (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC).

Enthusiasm is good, but encyclopedic is what is needed[edit]

I've removed these sentences that are unsuitable for an encyclopedia:

→"The means of printing affected the style of writing. For example, there were alphanumeric contractions which are actually precursors to "leet-speak." A well-known example is the "initials" used by Forrest J. Ackerman in his fanzines from the 30s and 40s, namely "4sj." Fans around the world knew Forry Ackerman by two-letters: "4e."'

Wikipedia is not a fanzine, and not a place for the sort of personal essays that sometimes appear in fanzines. The above has several problems, some of which are repeated in other places in the article.

1) The statement "The means of printing affected the style of writing". What does this mean? Who says? Needs a citation, but even with a citation, is questionable. For example, what aspect of the mechanics of writing do NOT affect the results?

2) The para makes an illogical jump. Why would some (unmentioned) means of printing give rise to contractions? Do other forms of printing inhibit contractions?

3) In science, speaking of evolution, it is reasonable to note that, for example, humans evolved from other ape creatures. There's concrete evidence that someone's ancestor was some other mammal. Saying "leet speak" has a precursor implies a scientific connection, when none exists.

4) The "peacock language" in these sentences, and in some of the rest of the article, are not what is suggested by Wiki's Manual of Style. "Fans around the world" is hype. How many fans does it take to be "around the world"? How many are NOT "around the world"? If an astronaut uses "4e", talking about Ackerman, does that make leet speak "intergalactic"? If a statement can't be proved or disproved, it may not belong in Wiki. If it has no definite meaning, it absolutely does not belong in Wiki.

5) The first time a person is mentioned in Wiki, their full name is used. Afterwards, by convention, their last name. Substituting "Forrest J. Ackerman" with "Forry Ackerman" may warm the hearts of "Forry" fans, but it is contrary to Wiki style. Wiki isn't a fan site, and by extension, it isn't a "Forry" fan site, either.

6) Changing an article about fanzines so that it includes personal essay and supposition about leet speak is outside the guidelines of Wiki contributions. When a contributor has an axe to grind, it's never acceptable to use Wiki as a platform to make personal statements that further personal beliefs not backed by: a) reliable, b) independent, c) third-party sources. (talk) 09:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you have any idea of what you're talking about. Have you actually read a fanzine or apazine that predates the computer era? Have you ever typed onto a ditto master or mimeo stencil? That answers 2. I wrote that section of the article, but this part of it predates my edit. In answer to 1, see the citation on 4sf and non-stop paragraphing. You're probably right in 5, but that just means that someone should make a "Forry Ackerman" redirect. Back in the slower days of mail communication, being known outside your immediate contacts and outside your country (with higher postage) was a big deal. See connecting articles on fandom. I wish you would undo your delete and write the redirect. I may do the former. --Baron Dave Romm (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I've attempted to address the issues raised by the IP. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I followed the link to Leet, and it seems to me that the type of contraction mentioned here is in no way similar to leet. Leet, as described by its page, uses numerals to replace letters based on some visual similarity, whereas 4sj seems to use the similarity in pronunciation "four-ess(t) j.". This type of contraction ("C U l8er") is not mentioned in the Leet page, although that might be an omission. I'm no hardcore wikipedian, but I'd say the link needs to be backed up by references. Isn't there a rule about original research or something? --Lasse Hillerøe Petersen (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Media fanzines[edit]

I note that virtually the entire section on Media fanzine is without references, which is to be expected. This does not make it permissable for someone to pick which unreferenced information to keep and which to delete on the basis of lacking references. Either it all stays if it is resonably factual, or it all goes. The whole paragraph on k/s fanzines has no references that specifically mention k/s fanzines. While I'm willing to agree that such information is factual, and hard to reference, deleting the chapter on Star Wars fanzines, which were outselling ST fanzines beginning in 1980, is unreasonable. If there is going to be a mention of something as obscure at k/s fanzines there needs to be a reference to the biggest selling fanzine fandom of the 1980's. In addition, whoever removed a much-needed paragraph on media fanzine art stated they did so because it stated "all" media fanzines have art. If the person takes the time to read the paragraph they will note that it actually says "many" media fanzines contain art, which is quite factual and needed for a complete overview of the subject. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no license for this section to be any worse referenced than any other. The absurdity was in the text which originally claimed that media zines introduced art into fanzines. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Um, no. It never made any such reference. It merely described the use of art in media fanzines. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
"media fanzines popularized fannish art and illustration": this clearly implies that art and illustrations were something new; whereas art and illustration had in fact been part of fanzines from their primitive beginnings. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
That's a very extreme interpretation of that statement, especially since it goes on to describe the type of unique artwork popularized by media fanzines, which is unlike the previously described art featured in literary fanzines. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Horror Movie Fanzines[edit]

Information on fanzine "Bizarre" added on 11 July 2011 by user Buyer1138 takes the form of an extended essay about this particular publication and does not fit with the encyclopedic tone. Please revise. Thanks. The News Hound 10:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The News Hound (talkcontribs)

Information on fanzine "Bizarre" has been revised to better conform with the article style. The News Hound 17:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The News Hound (talkcontribs)
I tinkered with it a bit; the section ideally should be in a stricter chronological order. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

What does nonprofessional and nonofficial mean?[edit]

This article fails to explain the difference between a fan publication and an official publication. Many fanzines are listed on eBay for large sums of money, so money is not the difference. Do fanzines lack a copyright notice? What is the difference? (talk) 04:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure at all what you mean by "official publication." A fanzine is by definition issued by a fan for the love of the topic. A fan magazine is created as a commercial or semi-commercial venture for the purpose of making money, and in some circles (especially media SF) may be "authorized" by the subject of the fan magazine, or even published by a for-profit entity linked to and controlled by the subject of the fan magazine. Old fanzines may very occasionally become valuable, usually due to contributions to said fanzines by persons who later become famous in more mundane circles: L. Ron Hubbard, Gene Simmons, etc. In other cases, deluded sellers may list old fanzines on eBay or other auction sites at absurd prices, either out of delusions of value or possibly in an effort to establish a value to be used in inflated IRS filings. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Retrogramer miscategorized[edit]

I'm not sure why a news-stand distributed magazine is being included here as a fanzine - fan magazine, maybe, but not a fanzine.Redqualia (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fanzine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)