Talk:Fantasy literature

Merging to Fantasy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article is pretty small and well within the scope of Fantasy. I don't think people looking for information on fantasy literature should have to come here when there's already a well-written article simply under Fantasy. Fantasy needs to be expanded regardless of the issue of merging, though, and the scope of this article could be easily incorporated into it. Thoughts? Pariah24 (talk) 07:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

See also #Rewrite (2006/2007, above). One thread of that exchange is, we need merger unless major rewrite with focus on the literary medium is undertaken adequately. I agree.

Editing articles myself --as editor always in literature context, almost always books and their writers-- always I link to the other article rather than this one. So, for instance, I write "fantasy novel" rather than or "fantasy novel".

The top "Media" portion of template {{fantasy}} --a navigation box displayed at top right of this article-- reveals much about how some of our editorial ancestors hoped to cover fantasy. (Consider also the warnings posted there and at template {{fantasy fiction}}.)

Evidently we now have something like 7 of 10 distinct media articles that were planned. Let me briefly classify the current targets of those "Media" links.

1. Anime --list of anime
2. [2a and 2b] Art (Fantastic) --nominally two articles but Fantasy art and Fantastic art have been merged
3. Artists --list of artists
4. Authors --article, Fantasy author!
5. Comics --article
6. Films --article
7. Literature --article
8. Magazines --article
9. Television --article
10. Webcomics --Category: Fantasy webcomics

--P64 (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be best to have one major fantasy article, even if it has to be very long, as opposed to many articles by media type. A few auxiliary articles like Fantasy author are okay, but I think a big split would be a bad idea. Better for the reader to have most of the info there in a primary article than to have them hopping around. Just my humble opinion. How do you suggest we move forward from here? Pariah24 ┃ ☏ 07:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It might not be a good idea because we already have a separate article for fantasy film, but it has not been merged into fantasy, so it's better off we do the same for fantasy literature.--Taeyebaar (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Duplication with "History of fantasy"

After starting editing this article, I realise that there is a parallel article History of fantasy, which focusses also on literature. Can anyone explain why WP needs these two articles? As far as I can see the previous merge discussion doesn't include this duplication of subject matter. Rwood128 (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

See also Fantasy: "History" [1]. Perhaps History of fantasy should also be re-named "History of fantasy literature", as there is also the article Fantasy which deals with all media. This would reflect the contents of "History of fantasy" less ambiguously. Rwood128 (talk) 17:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

See these comments [2]. Rwood128 (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Unless there are objections, in the next week, the merge will be made. Rwood128 (talk) 11:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Terry Brooks overlooked in the history section.

There are sources citing Sword of Shannara being the first paperback fiction to be in the New York Times bestseller list. Whilst a minor point, I feel that since it was published in 1977, long before many other High Fantasy novels that its an important landmark to put into the article.

http://www.randomhouse.com/features/brooks/author/bio.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.5.89 (talk) 23:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Requesting wider attention

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)

This needs a total rewrite

This article really needs a total overhaul. It's incredibly small, frankly, for such an expansive topic. It is incredibly shallow and far too narrow in its focus. I came here intending to add details about Chinese fantasy literature only to find out that there's not even a single reference to the topic! To say nothing of Japanese and various other national fantasy literatures. Reference to wuxia, for instance, belongs here, as well as shenmo.

Philologick (talk) 08:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Philologick: You might be looking for Early history of fantasy, which has a more international focus. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Olivaw-Daneel: No, that's no less a shoddy article. It frankly amazes me that something as popular as fantasy has such dismal pages on Wikipedia. Even the wuxia page is better, despite being a little-known genre in the West!

Philologick (talk) 06:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)