Talk:Fandom Flounce

Linking to Dargelos's Fanlore 'exit' doesn't seem appropriate -- it looks a bit snippy and petty. Vote to remove? --awils1 06:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

By that definition, linking to all fandom flounces can seem snippy and petty. I feel uncomfortable with the idea, but unless there is a policy that says we cannot offer examples the ...less postive....aspects of fandom, unlinking it seems even more counter-productive. You could add a footnote if you feel that this is not an example of a fandom flounce and explain why. Having more than one take on the concept would be helpful since one person's flounce is another person's rallying cry.--Morgandawn 07:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and inserted the qualifier and also added a few more examples/descriptions of flounces - both here on Fanlore and elsewhere. --Morgandawn 08:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the only reason I felt Dargelos's link was petty was because it was principally related to Fanlore in itself. It is a fandom flounce, but because it was a fandom flounce based on the fact that we were linking to a zine that the author had not wanted sold. She has also apologised at a later stage, for said flounce. --awils1 11:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Her apology can be viewed at her fan page. --awils1 12:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I redirected the link to her Fan Page as it contains a more comprehensive view of the author's feelings about fandom (aka her message went beyond Fanlore and focused also on the WayBack machine as well as Mysti Frank, authorial control and fannish entitlement. --Morgandawn 16:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)