Talk:Shipping (fandom)

I hate how the mods keep changing the shipping image to the Mickey X Oswald

Are you guys actually homo I mean there's nothing wrong with being gay but all of you love changing it to that images and making admin abuse excuses even when there's a even more better image that's not copyrighted.

STOP ADMIN ABUSING ShadowDaLoser (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Neither casual homophobia nor accusing people of "admin abusing" (in all-caps and bold!) is likely to persuade people to your point of view. The image you wanted to use in the article has been deleted for copyright reasons, so we clearly can't use that. What other image do you suggest would be better than the current one? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

You are exactly right. The view of the user you are replying to is definitely not going to persuade people to change their opinions.--Historyday01 (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Shipping doesn't have to be romantic.

On the actual article, it states that "the desire by followers of a fandom for two or more people, either real-life people or fictional characters (in film, literature, television series, etc.), to be in a romantic relationship." However, shipping is derived from the word 'relationship,' which is not always romantic. Sure, fandom shipping is USUALLY romantic, but that doesn't change the fact that relationships include siblings, parent and child, and literally friends. Not called a friend-SHIP for no reason, is it?

Not editing the original article because I don't want to cause an issue.

Sorry for being petty. I'm just trying to prove a point to someone. Cassidyspite (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok. I would say it generally does mean romantic, so I don't see a reason to change it. Historyday01 (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Friendships are a type of relationship, but "shipping" specifically refers to romantic relationships. It was originally coined specifically about a romantic relationship, and the sources cited in this article specifically say that it refers to romantic relationships. Possibly some people use the word more broadly but that would be a definite minority position and without sources discussing such a use we should not put it in the article. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Right, exactly. Historyday01 (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Not to be rude or petty, or trying to change your opinion intentionally, but I do need to say there is a variant of shipping called "platonic shipping", which is shipping but without romantic intention or influences (hence "platonic"), I'm pretty sure there are sources out there that describe that specific type of shipping, If I remember correctly.

Albeit, I do agree with you. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 05:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Googling the phrase "platonic shipping" finds a relatively small number of uses, all of which seem to be social media/user generated. I can't find any reliable sources talking about platonic shipping being a thing. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, it seems to just be an unsourced variant of shipping, whom of which are user-generated.

I'm pretty sure there are other names for this phenomenon, but I suggest we don't add an unsourced section till further notice. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 01:49, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Real person shipping

Possibly this article should include something on real person shipping, and the problems with that. It doesn't seem to be mentioned outside the WP:LEAD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

If there is adequate sourcing for it, then sure. Historyday01 (talk) 13:06, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

If there are no sources, it shouldn't be in the lead, either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:15, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I completely agree. Historyday01 (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Could we change the main image?

We don't even have to remove the image from the article but I think we should pick an image that is better suited as the current one is the first thing you see when you hover over a link for this article. The image makes shipping in general to be way more lewd than it is and frankly kind of problematic as Mickey and Oswald are commonly considered brothers. DepressedChickenNugget (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Do you have an alternative suitably licensed image that you think would be better? Frankly I'm struggling to think of a less lewd image which would be appropriate – they aren't even kissing! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Happy_Public_Domain_Day,_by_UnevenPrankster.png is a good contender i think, given it has both mickey mouse, who is in the current image and wikipe-tan, who is considered the unofficial mascot of wikipedia

i also want to add the current infobox image has highly incestuous undertones as they were confirmed to be brothers in the epic mickey series, and has aspects of oswalds design (namely, the blue shorts) that likely arent freely licensed Zeebeethedog (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm tied between whether to use that one or... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipe-tan_and_Adult_Commons-tan_Yuri.png and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Can_I_have_you_as_my_wife%3F_by_vananhtrieu.jpg. Which one do you think is better? Historyday01 (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Frankly I don't think any of those are improvements. I don't have any particular attachment to the current image, but of the proposed alternatives, all three read as less obviously depicting shipping to me. Wikipedia-Tan is not really the subject of any fandom and art with her in seems to take the image further away from the subject of this article. Of the three images, this at least depicts an actual ship. On the other hand, it's neither a big fandom nor a notable ship (about 700 works for the fandom and 169 for the ship on AO3 at time of writing) and if we are going to depict a completely non-notable ship there's at least an argument that it should be an M/M one as the relative prevalence of M/M is arguably the most distinctive thing about fanfiction shipping culture. And for a general audience the existing Mickey/Oswald is much more recognisably depicting known characters, which is another key feature of shipping worth conveying. (As for the idea that Oswald and Mickey are brothers in Epic Mickey and therefore we shouldn't show shipping art of them: nonsense. They aren't the world's most popular ship, but people do ship Mickey/Oswald – along with plenty of things which make people more uncomfortable than that! WP:NOTCENSORED applies here: "I find fictional incest icky" is not a compelling reason to change the image.)

My ideal replacement image would recognisably show a popular ship (probably but not necessarily an M/M one) in a clearly shippy manner – Holmes/Watson would be a good candidate as the original stories and the iconic Sidney Paget illustrations are all out of copyright, but Kirk/Spock, Xena/Gabrielle (as an example of an influential F/F ship) or Mulder/Scully (the source of the word) are other obvious options. Ideally the article would also discuss that ship. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

should we add BFDI?

well, since EVERY, SINGLE, CHARACTER has a major ship, including questions about shipping at the BFDI and II tour. Floppaisgood (talk) 07:24, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

You mean Battle for Dream Island right? Here's the guidance to adding additional fandoms (this is currently hidden text for the article). If BFDI does meet that and has adequate sourcing, then surely it could be added. But, considering it an indie animation (which usually struggle when it comes to sourcing) with an article with eleven sources, I'm not convinced.

Please do not add information about another fandom before or after this section unless...shipping of the fandom is unique/notable...[the fandom] has something which makes the conflicts (or non-conflicts) of a fandom stand-out...[and] aspects of said fandom illuminate/flesh out the shipping phenomenon. Additionally, citing an author response to shipping in a fandom is important, but not necessary, in establishing its notability. In general, unless a fandom is a strong example of something described in the article or has some an interesting unique non-trivial aspect to its shipping culture, then it shouldn't be added to this article.

Historyday01 (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I have read WP-good sources (and some others) on this subject, and I've seen none that mentioned shipping. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, if that is the case, then it shouldn't be included. Historyday01 (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Wikipe-tan and Adult Commons-tan Yuri.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Question about the image used.

Some people are discussing whether to remove the shipping example image or not. If anyone would like, I could draw an image that would fit okay, if anyone's acceptable with it being two Pokémon, Cresselia & Darkrai. Bad copyright, may not have me use it. Otherwise we can keep the current image, but some people are kind of complaining about it, and this may just be a stupid question.

Lucy LostWord, official creator of Wonderful Video Game! 01:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I mean, that could work, I'd be fine with that. Historyday01 (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Then again, they're two copyrighted characters from a company very strict with copyright, right…?

Lucy LostWord, official creator of Wonderful Video Game! 01:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

This is not an area of copyright law I'm particularly well versed in, but my inclination is that fanart of pokemon is probably problematic from a copyright point of view judging by Commons:Com:Fan art? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Poking about on commons there is now some freely-licensed Destiel fanart so I've switched up the lead image for that Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:35, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

All righty!

Lucy LostWord, official creator of Wonderful Video Game! 15:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

"SonAmy" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect SonAmy has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 15 § SonAmy until a consensus is reached. मल्ल (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Please clarify

The article Shipping (fandom) says "One of the first slash pairings that some fans gravitated toward was Luke Skywalker and Leia Organa, also known as Luke/Leia or L/L, rather than male slash pairings."

But slash fiction says it's about homosexual relationships. So then how can incestual shipping between a brother and a sister be a slash pairing? ~2026-15370-93 (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, Luke/Leia isn't slash and the source doesn't call it slash; I've fixed it Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:39, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

First of all, *some* do characterize slash as including heterosexual pairings (not saying I agree with this interpretation, which is a fringe view), as noted at Slash fiction#Definition and ambiguity:

Due to the increasing popularity and prevalence of slash on the Internet in recent years, some use slash as a generic term for any erotic fan fiction, whether it depicts heterosexual or homosexual relationships. This has caused concern for other slash writers, who believe that, while it can be erotic, slash is not, by definition, so, and that defining all erotic fiction as slash makes such fiction unsuitable for potential underage readers of homoromantic fan fiction. In addition, a number of journalists writing about the fan fiction phenomenon in general seem to believe that all fan fiction is slash, or at least erotic in character. Such definitions fail to distinguish between erotic and romantic slash, and between slash, het (works focusing primarily on heterosexual relationships) and gen (works which do not include a romantic focus). The slash mark itself (/), when put between character's names, has come to mean a shorthand label for a romantic relationship, regardless of whether the pairing is heterosexual or homosexual, romantic or erotic.

Even so, I don't have an issue with removing the word slash from that sentence. I did look back at the original source which mentions Luke/Leia as an incest pairing in a chart (as compared to other incest pairings in other fandoms), "The only heterosexual pairings are...Leia/Luke of Star Wars (1977–)...Whereas in fandom, the exploration of heterosexual incest relationships between twins of different gender (e.g., Luke and Leia of Star Wars) predates Harry Potter." How part of this was described was in a paragraph which also talked about slash fiction which was probably why I accidentally added in that word. Anyway, thanks for the edit.Historyday01 (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Star Trek, Fandom & Overall Page

Should Star Trek not be included as a notable fandom in this article? A lot of modern-day shipping culture traces it's roots to the pre-internet, with Star Trek being absolutely huge in it's contributions to how ship names are structured on the current day. It is also worth noting the contribution of zines, conventions, etc., and how franchises like Fifty Shades of Gray are a result of hardcore fandom shipping & fanfiction. Overall I think this article could use a lot of work. A re-haul cold be in order?
I also believe diving into how various fandoms will categorize naming conventions for ships could be very interesting. I would have to track down sources & studies on these sorts of things. Touching briefly on shipping ethics is fine and all in this article, though I do think we should also hyperlink to the dedicated page for that. Catloki (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, the dedicated page you mentioned is linked in its former name "Shipping discourse" (now it is named "Shipping ethics controversy in fanfiction"), which is why there isn't as much of that here. Secondly, I'm down with improvements, but I do think the page does have a lot of sources right now and it is better than before. Also, part of the reason, as I understand it, that some fandoms have more attention because there's more sources about other fandoms, than others, and finding reliable sources about those fandoms. Thirdly, I have no issue with having a section on Star Trek, as there is a Trekkie page already. Also, there's a Sexuality in Star Trek page too. So, a Star Trek section would need to pull from both of those pages in a succinct way. Fourthly, as the one who wrote the Star Wars fandom section, and updated the Avatar: The Last Airbender and Legend of Korra sections, writing sections like that can take time. Otherwise, I know that Fifty Shades of Gray originated from fanfiction (it is noted the "Background and publication" and "Critical response" sections on that page), although there's nothing about the influence of the fandom on shipping, etc there.

I did find some articles like "Fifty shades of exploitation: Fan labor and "Fifty Shades of Grey"" and Elizabeth Minkel's "Fifty Shades of Fan Fiction" (archived version here). There would have to be more sources to add it in into the main article. Thanks for commenting here, as surely the page can be improved, but as I said before, it is better than in the past. Historyday01 (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

oh i'm sure it's definitely gone through a lot of improvements! i was just suggesting various throw-at-the-wall ideas. when i meant rehaul i meant less-so rewriting the whole thing, but maybe.. a reorganize?

another interesting thing to include could be RPF and it's relationship to fandom shipping, though i am unsure where to start with that... ~2026-27036-60 (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps. There is a whole Real person fiction page right now, and perhaps some of that could come into the main page. I mean, a rehaul and reorganization could be good, but that may take some time, and probably a consensus to do so. Historyday01 (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2026 (UTC) Update: Section sizes at the top of this page might help with rehaul/reorganization. Historyday01 (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2026 (UTC) Another update. The page has been partially overhauled by removing the notable fandoms section and changing it to the current format instead, to hopefully prevent fandom-dumping.Historyday01 (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Choucas0, I am going to assume good faith in your edits. Despite that, the way you have been editing the main page is helpful in some ways, but not in others, including questionable editing like retaining Screenrant links but keeping CBR ones, even though they are under the same company (Valnet), and have the same source quality arguably. Also, in my view, The Daily Dot has at least some reliability and I am aware there have been many discussions about it over the years, as listed at WP:RSPSOURCES, with currently no consensus as whether to use it or not (even so, it is currently used on over 2,700 pages). I will say that finding sources on this topic can be difficult. I would strongly encourage you to find better sources first, then add those in, rather than coming in and removing sources in the manner you are doing. I do not intend to have an edit war (and will not be reversing any of your other edits apart from the two I did reverse), but explaining your reasoning in edit summaries, rather than posting here isn't helpful. It isn't a race to improve pages like this. Editors can take their time with it, as I have with this page over the years. If you would like to compile better sources here to replace sources you feel are not as good, that's fine and that would be encouraged. This page surely needs improvement, but it needs to be done in the right way. I would be more than happy to discuss sourcing quality for this page, as I am always trying to use the best possible sources on here in my editing. I look forward to hearing from you.Historyday01 (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is not supposed to be a favor you are doing me, it is a basic behavioral expectation, you know; I am not sure how calling my edits "renegade" fits into that. I do not understand your point regarding source selection. It is not because I am not removing a source in a given edit that I find it so much better than another one. Besides, not all Valnet publications have the same reliability according to community discussions that you can find linked at WP:RSP and WP:NPPSG. Please do not rely on your own interpretation to determine such things; many media outlets big and small have the same owner while having wildly different quality and reliability. This page is currently in a terrible shape, with massive WP:DUE weight problems, since it is mostly a list of ships and almost nothing on the phenomenon itself. This is in great part due to its terrible sourcing. You are acting like my edits were major changes to the article, and not removing a select few bad quality sources referencing info already verified by better ones. Asking me to preemptively ask for permission before I make changes to this page is not how things are supposed to work on Wikipedia. Talking about how you have taken your time with this page over the years, and seemingly deeming yourself fit to determine what is the right way to improve it (your emphasis), seriously smacks of WP:OWN behavior on your part, and I would encourage you to reflect on that. You seem to care much more about this page than I do, so I am not going to spend more energy into trying to make it better; however, if you are so ready to fight even minor attempts for improvement by others, then I can only suggest you work on making the article at least decent. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛ 15:37, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Sigh. First of all, I do not disagree with you that the page needs work, but to say it is in "terrible shape" is completely and wholly inaccurate. As I said in an above comment on this talk page, it is better than in the past. In terms of Valnet publications, my understanding was that people were grouping them all together when it comes to reliability, which is why I said what I did. I am not acting like your edits were "major changes" to the article, as they weren't. In fact, I agreed with more than half of your edits, except a few of them, and thanked you for those. In addition, I'm not asking you "preemptively" for permission, but only thought a discussion would be better than editing back-and-forth, as each of use had different interpretations.

I don't own this page by any stretch and do not claim to do so. I am only here to encourage more people to contribute. Wikipedia is a collaborative venture. I have learned that over the years. Otherwise, I certainly care about this page, as someone who added certain sections. While saying that, whether you want to spend energy on this page to make it better or not, that is your prerogative, of course. Presently, I plan to look at each source on the page (starting with the notable fandoms section). I already removed the badly sourced Stranger Things section for now, until better sourcing can be established, if it can be.--Historyday01 (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, if you are going to ping me in your reply while I am around, please do not edit your comment this way as you should assume it is likely I am going to answer the initial one before being able to see that you changed it. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛ 15:41, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay. I revised my original comment because I wanted to add more to it, that's all. Historyday01 (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

REO Speedwagon

I always thought it was a funny coincidence that in the 1980 REO Speedwagon song "I can't fight this feeling," they predated the metaphor online by more than a decade. "It’s time to bring this ship into the shore and throw away the oars forever." DCJensen42 (talk) 23:19, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Lol! Dingolover6969 (talk) 07:20, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Vel and Cinta in Star Wars

Quote : Other fans shipped Vel and Cinta in the series Andor("Valcinta"). which became canon,

It had been canon since the very first Aldhani arc episode in Season 1 where the audience were introduced to Vel and Cinta. Skeen even told Andor that Cinta is "already sharing a blanket with someone else". Episode 6 of Season 1 made it crystal clear that the "someone else" is indeed Vel.

It didn't "become canon" as a result of fanfiction. Credit goes to Tony Gilroy, not the slashfiction community. ~2026-38151-19 (talk) 03:55, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay. The text itself does not say it became canon due to fanfiction, but only that people shipped those characters, a ship which became canon in the course of the show. At least that's what I was going for when writing that line.--In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2026 (UTC)