Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

Sciences humaines.svg This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Andikaylynn.

Above undated message substituted from assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Subgenre articles and redirects[edit]

Do we have anywhere a list of subgenre articles? Without judgment whether they should be considered "subgenres" of a fantasy "genre", without judgment whether they should be listed or mentioned in this article, which articles apparently cover fantasy subgenres? And which "X fantasy" redirects do we have?

The appropriate location may be this talk page, Talk: Fantasy, or Talk: Fantasy literature or some Wikipedia talk page.

P.S. Nominally there is a Fantasy task force of WP:Novels, which claims or recognizes the Fantasy literature article but not this one (no banner above). Fantasy novel redirects there, which fits bearing the Novels banner, but fantasy fiction redirects here. --P64 (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The links in the "Genres of fantasy" section of Outline of fantasy may be the closest thing to a "list of subgenre articles" that we have. Deor (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I need to know the main facts about what fantasy genre is any help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilylouise2000 (talkcontribs) 09:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article should have all the main facts you need. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 09:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merger Discussion(s)[edit]

  • Re: Talk: Fantasy literature: Discussion started at source article talk page. In the interest of keeping the discussion in a single location, please see the discussion >>>HERE<<<. (If it is decided at this time that the merger will take place, I will transclude the discussion here.) GenQuest "Talk to Me" 12:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since there is a lack of thoughts, that means no-consensus therefore things will stay as are. --Frmorrison (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fantasy. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 09:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Duplication of fantasy articled[edit]

Re your recent edit and comment, User:Deor, sorry I must have got confused, jumping between various fantasy articles. See Talk :History of fantasy [1] .Hope you can understand what I've said?

I moved the further information link to try and emphasise the fact that there are several articles that tend to overlap. I would greatly appreciate another set of eyes reviewing the situation here – if you have the time? Rwood128 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the hatnotes in the individual sections, along with the "See also" section, more clearly present links to the related articles. You moved some of the links in the hatnote in the "History" section to a hatnote at the top of the article and then partially reproduced them at the beginning of the "History" section again. That seems to me more confusing than enlightening. Deor (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your advice. I was probably moving too fast, though the large banner obscures things. Sorry to make work for you. Rwood128 (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Renaming this article[edit]

Confusingly, this article does not in fact deal with "fantasy": "imagination, fancy, invention, make-believe; creativity, vision; daydreaming, reverie" (the primary meaning of the word), but "Fantasy (genre)". I suggest that it should, therefore, be renamed accordingly. Rwood128 (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The hatnote at the top of the article, "This article is about the artistic genre. For other uses, see Fantasy (disambiguation)", makes the scope of the article sufficiently clear, I think. The dictionary definintion is a topic for a dictionary rather than an encyclopedia (though some of the definition's senses are partially covered in Fantasy (psychology)). Deor (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About the right side boxes and the image on the Fantasy one[edit]

Why are there two boxes, when they seemingly overlap? Shouldn't they be consolidated into one, if they're supposed to refer to/encompass the same thing? And why is this mainstream modern fantasy image used, when the article reflects a bunch of historical info? Seems to me these things could do with a bit of an overhaul, but I'm unsure how to proceed with it myself, so I'm just drawing attention to it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed Revisions[edit]

Hello Fellow Wikipedians,

Reading through the article a few questions came up that I want to address, as well as some things I plan on editing.

  • In the lead, the last sentence did not make sense grammatically. It feels as though it is cut off before the thought finishes and I did not see a mention of the structuralist theory of Tzvetan Todorov anywhere else in the text. Would it be better to remove this or work the theory in somewhere in the article and edit the sentence so it makes sense? I am not knowledgable enough to expand on the theory, but I am bringing this up incase someone else is able to.
  • The final paragraph of the lead also seems to fit better in the Traits section because the first sentence sounds like an introduction to defining characteristics. The paragraph that begins "In popular culture..." sounds like a good place to break off the lead, and if the last sentence gets removed, the sentence "Fantasy is studied...history and medieval studies" is a good opening for the next section.
  • The Early History subheading of the History section is mostly focused on stories from western culture, and even more specifically on stories from ancient Greece and Rome, and Europe. In order to add more diversity to this, I think adding a mention of one story from each of the cultures listed in the Early history of fantasy article will help. The stories do not need to have long explanations with them—that is what the other article is for—but because this is supposed to be a general article about all fantasy, these cultures should not be excluded.
  • Under the Media section, there is a link to the Fantasy Art article, yet there is no mention of fantasy art in this section. If the link is going to be there, there should be some explanation of fantasy art in the section.
  • Should the subculture section be moved to above the Classification section? Doing this would disrupt the flow of the information less, because the bulleted list would not be in the middle.
  • Also the demographic information seems like an after thought thrown in at the end of the subculture section. If I can figure out a way to incorporate the information into a different section, I will, so the information is less jarring to the reader.
  • I think the Classification section should also be adjusted so that both subheadings are in a list format. This will maintain consistency within this section.

If y'all have any suggestions or thoughts, please let me know. I will start working on some of this in the next few days.

Thanks Andikaylynn (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In adding information to the Early History subsection and the Media section, I copied some of what is provided on the Early history of fantasy and the Fantastic art pages. Andikaylynn (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional subgenre? I recently encountered the expression "gunpowder fantasy", in which a fantasy milieu includes post-Industrial Revolution technology such as guns and cannons, unlike classic epic fantasy worlds that are medieval (or quasi-medieval). Niel Hancock's Circle of Light/Windameir books might be a good example. Seems to be an overlap with "gaslamp fantasy," but I wonder if the two are distinct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Original Research?[edit]

The following excerpt is from the Traits section. It sounds like original research to me.

For instance, a narrative that takes place in an imagined town in the northeastern United States could be considered realistic fiction as long as the plot and characters are consistent with the history of a region and the natural characteristics that someone who has been to the northeastern United States expects; however, if the narrative takes place in an imagined town, on an imagined continent, with an imagined history and an imagined ecosystem, the work becomes fantasy with or without supernatural elements.

Do y'all agree? Is it ok if I remove it? Andikaylynn (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. If they could find someone to cite using this criteria and attribute that to said theorist, then it could remain. Etherfire (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This also reads like OR:
Despite MacDonald's future influence with At the Back of the North Wind (1871), Morris's popularity with his contemporaries, and H. G. Wells's The Wonderful Visit (1895), it was not until the 20th century that fantasy fiction began to reach a large audience. 
But we might just need a citation.Etherfire (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remove Tags?[edit]

The tags on this page are a bit outdated. I think the problems with WP:NOR and personal reflection are almost gone and a lot of citations have been inserted. I even think that the Worldwide view tag has largely been remedied by Andikaylynn's recent edits. Second?Etherfire (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed, Etherfire. I can't vouch for absence of OR, but this article certainly doesn't lack citations and is not an essay. Removed two out of three tags. There is one sentence that isn't cited and has been challenged, but in such a case it's better to tag the sentence than the entire article per WP:OVERTAGGING.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Fantasy (Word)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fantasy (Word). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requesting wider attention[edit]

I felt article Islamic_literature is in bit of neglect so I added my note on talk page there, requesting to take note of Talk:Islamic_literature#Article_review. If possible requesting copy edit support. Suggestions for suitable reference sources at Talk:Islamic_literature is also welcome.

Posting message here too for neutrality sake

Thanks and greetings

Bookku (talk) 08:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New topic image?[edit]

Could someone find a more mature and less trendy-looking image for the topic? The image currently in use looks adolescent and trivial. (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I assume that you're referring to the images at the top of the "Fantasy" sidebar. (I'm not a big fan of such sidebars, since navboxes at the bottom of articles seem less intrusive to me.) I've moved to the top the image that was formerly used as the lead image; does that look better to you?
If you object to the images in the sidebar, the matter is better discussed at Template talk:Fantasy, where the most recent thread (from 2017) deals with precisely the topic of those images, though with no resolution having apparently been achieved. Deor (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

§By theme (subgenres)[edit]

This section doesn't say much at all. I wanted to know what delineated these genres and left more confused than before I read it. Sometimes the definitions were just wordier versions of the names of the genres: "Heroic fantasy, concerned with the tales of heroes in imaginary lands." Some genres that I know about weren't really described in a way that evoked what makes them distinct: "Magical girl fantasy, involving young girls with magical powers, mainly in Japanese fiction." There are many stories in which a young girl has access to magical abilities, that doesn't make it Magical Girl genre. The Harry Potter books aren't Magical Girl genre just by "involving young girls." The entire section needs a rewrite—to the point that I wonder how many of these genres are really a thing outside of this article. ELI5--2604:2D80:DE11:1300:5546:C643:C5F6:3497 (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mentioning of power metal music at the bottom of the navigation box?[edit]

Fantasy themes are somewhat prevalent in hard/prog rock/heavy metal, but this is especially true in power metal, with bands like Manowar, Blind Guardian, and Rhapsody of Fire. I think there should at least be some mention in the Fantasy navigation box at the bottom of the page, either in Fandom or Related. Yungstirjoey666 (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]