User talk:Gozer

Hi Gozer, I don't know why you had trouble editing the Teeny Gozer Production page but not the talk page, it is not locked or anything, but I also wanted to point out the nifty feature that signs comments on talk pages with name and date--~~~~, you can just click the squiggle button (the second from the right) on the editor to add these.--RatCreature 06:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm loving all these covers and other info you're putting in, Gozer. They're beautiful. --Mrs. Potato Head 19:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Looking over fanlore, I became concerned that pre-internets fan culture might not be so well-represented, so I wanted to do my part. I'm packing up more zines to go to the Fan Preservation Project so if I find something really unusual, I'll put it up -- there's some stuff I already sent them that I wished I'd scanned first! Question: I just found a packet of NOT The MediaWest*Con Program Guides (these were very snarky, meta booklets left on freebie tables at MediaWest for years, nobody knew for sure who did them) and wondered if I should scan them all and put them up in their own entry. They consist of two legal-sized pages folded over to make an 8-page booklet -- do I just put up the cover or can I scan all of it as it's so short? These things were genius at poking fun at fandom. What do you think? Just the front cover? Front & back cover? Or should I scan and post the whole thing?--Gozer 15:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Speaking unofficially, I'd say just the front and back covers should be uploaded here, since Fanlore isn't a fanworks archive. Also, there may be copyright issues with scanning all of the pages if you can't find the author(s). But a separate entry for NOT The MediaWest*Con Program Guides (?) sounds great. I look forward to reading all about it :) --æthel 15:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say they definitely should have their own entry, and I'd use the template "Fanwork." I'd scan the both covers for sure, but then either list what's in them as a table of contents or describe their contents. Hopefully both. But I'm thinking that scanning the entire thing as content is not a good idea, both for "legal" reasons and because the wiki's aim isn't to have full content of fanworks, just description. Other folks agree? Also, I'm thrilled that you're sending the U of I more material. They've been good eggs. --15:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)~

The other choice is to scan one issue in its entirety (if it is short) and remove names/addresses. Or you can just scan a few keypages of several issues (again removing names/addresses) to give a flavor (this is my preferred method when dealing with fanzines that contain art or fiction). Scanning and uploading an entire fanzine is most likely not inside the wiki's scope, but when it comes to program guides or letterzines, there is some flexibility in offering either a representative sampling or an entire booklet. In fact *all* of the Escapade convention program guides have been uploaded (multiple years) with names blacked out. So it comes down to what the item is and why we're preserving it - fan fiction/art = front/back covers + samples. Program guides/letterzines = a bit more data. Apart from what is showing up on Fanlore, some fans are scanning entire documents (program guides/letterzines/adzines) for archival purposes before sending them off to the University. That is because these documents contain useful references to events/people and dates as well as info about zines that can help them with their Fanlore entries. So you may want to consider doing that (time permitting) before shipping any items off to an archive. I tend to scan a lot more than I upload simply because once I send off the item to someone else, it is gone. Bottom line: there is no one set opinion as to how much to scan and what to scan and how much to upload. The Wiki supports plural viewpoints.--FanloreFan 18:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The thing about these guides is their utter anonymity. No name is on it, anywhere. The guilty parties remained anonymous all these years! That's why I thought it might be nice to get them all into Fanlore -- they are filled with meta jokes that were specific to the year they were done. It's a really nice way to look at how things progressed, when internet jokes started, what fandoms were popular that year, etc.--Gozer 20:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Then I say, if they're short, anon. and offer more of a meta commentary on the state of fandom (as opposed to a fan story or fan art), then scan them and upload them. It would be helpful if you could offer a brief context/overview of each issue(ex. "in this issue, the in jokes focused on xxxx in response to YYYY. In fact, at the time, there was some discussion around ZZZZZ because.... For greater detail, click on the pdf here." I'd rather see us err on the side of inclusion rather than self-censorship. And if the Fanlore Committee wants to adopt a more specific policy down the road, they can always address it then. Right now, we're all using our best judgment. --FanloreFan 20:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I LOVE the scans of the NOT The MediaWest*Con Program Guides. Keep them coming - they're short sweet and clearly will illustrate the shifting topics of fan mockery across time.--FanloreFan 01:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yo! I planned on doing one a week, but my mom broke her arm and I've been at her place for the last week or so! I'll do another one this weekend.--Gozer 01:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The NOT The MediaWest*Con Program Guides - what should we do with the credit given to Susan M. Garrett and her friend for creating them? If the facts are confirmed, we could always drop a footnote with a 'for a clue to the creator identities, go here). --Morgandawn 20:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

http://fanlore.org/wiki/Susan_M._Garrett

There's absolutely no question that it was Susan M. Garrett and Ann Larimer who did these. Speaking as someone who's attended MediaWest*Con every year since 1986, and who has been friends with Ann even longer than that, I always looked forward to picking up this publication at each year's con. They may have been distributed at the flyer tables in the early years of their existence, however in the later years you had to actually pick them up at Susan's table in the dealers room -- and you were lucky to get one, as they had a very short print run!-Cannellfan 02:40, 25 Dec 2010 (UTC)

HOLY CRAP, the person you refer to as 'her friend', Ann Larimer, is on my LJ friend's list! I feel like doing a "J'accuse" at her and demanding to know why they spelled "calendar" wrong in every damned one of those things. And if they didn't do them until they got to the con so they'd be topical.  ;) Do you want me to query her on the provenance of the guides? We should do a footnote, definitely--I like the "for a clue" thing! BTW: I found another guide, the year 2000 one! I'm sorry for taking my time on this whole scan-and-post project (which is rather time-consuming, as you probably can tell), I truly have been busy with dire RL stuff and I'm going to my mom's house for a few days again this weekend.--Gozer 13:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I *love* the fact that that word was spelled wrong each time. :-) And I love the whole elegant mysteriousness of these. I'd kind of hate to lose it by integrating it with facts, so maybe a footnote and clue is the way to go? On another note: I'm glad you're working on these (and any other stuff here), Gozer. They make me smile. --Mrs. Potato Head 14:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I just made an Ann Larimer page so please fill it in as appropriate. Though it turns out that there are two fandom Ann Larimers (I made a note on the page). --msilverstar 01:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Goozer (oops, my bad spelling) - Gozer, yes by all means ask Ann. And report back. I'll go ahead and will make the footnote edit and we can tweak as needed. And I agree with Mrs P (I am not even going to try to spell *that* name): I love the bits you are adding. --Morgandawn 15:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)