Talk:Fanboy/Archive 1

Fannish?

Is that even a word? Whatever it is, it disturbs me deeply and should be done away with. I hate it when fandoms make up their own weird variations of already existing words. I have the same dislike of the word "fen", which reminds me of poultry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.231.192.138 (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanboy#Background

There are a few articles about some Sanas guy here. However stupid/trollish/whatever he may be, Wikipedia isn't a repository for hate-mongering. Robinson0201 10:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Cola Fanboys

Cola fanboys? Seriously? I think this line should be deleted, but I'm willing to hear an argument otherwise. Dme 22:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• I was going to instinctively agreed with you until I remembered people who slavishly support either one cola or another - that's probably what the line referred to. I'm not sure if that's really the case, but in an extreme enough case that would make sense. Krupo 04:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Other comments

Mike Dowden from something positive is an example of an annoying fanboy (albeit one who is trying to reform.) http://www.somethingpositive.net/cast-mike.shtml

Is this grammar rule correct? A comma before "and" or "or"? Rmhermen 02:51 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

if listing more than two things—such as this, this, and this—then a comma goes before all and, or, and buts. (Momus 02:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC))

See Oxford comma. Amber388 17:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought the term "fanboy" meant, within the comic book world, that you were the type of collector that cared nothing of the content of a comic book (the story) you only cared of the comic book's future dollar value. In other words a "fanboy" didn't read comics they only "collected" comics as a form of investment. Another example of this would be, when the practice of comics being shipped pre-bagged (ie. McFarlane's Spider-Man #1), a "fanboy" would only buy a copy (or several copies) of the bagged edition never to be opened, while a "true" comic book collector would definitely buy a copy to open and read. I stopped collecting comics in the early 90's and I can not recall where I heard the definition as I just described it. If I am wrong feel free to tell me. Does anyone else remember this version of the definition of the term "fanboy"? (Also see the comic book "Lobo's Back #1".)DrNvrmore 22:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Videogame Fanboys

The paragraph on videogame fanboys (i.e., "...a fanboy is someone who appreciates a certain game almost exclusively because of its story...") is interesting. I haven't heard that restricted usage before. Can anyone point to an example of that usage of the term fanboy, or talk about how they or someone they know use the term in that way? Vadder 01:24, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I removed this fragment (text below). It is interesting (if true), but without at least some justification it should not be included.

In video games, especially in fighting games, a fanboy is someone who appreciates a certain game almost exclusively because of its story and would tend to support those things that would improve the story, even at the expense of good gameplay.

Feel free to read back with the explanation of where/by whom it is used. Paranoid 22:39, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am the one who inserted that paragraph. The term "fanboy" as described that sentence is used in this way in the forms of http://www.shoryuken.com (the leading competitive fighting game website), and in the many reviews and forum posts of people on (http://www.gamefaqs.com) especially in regards to the game king of fighters.

Overly Specific

In "Subjects of Obsession", Where it states that (as examples) overzealous fans of the Wii, 360, PS3, DS, or PSP are fanboys is a bit date-specific. I have made it clearer that it doesn't necessarily mean that fanboys are new (fanboys have been around since at least the NES/Master System days). I also fixed the spelling in this entire talk page! Bwahahahah! Sycomonkey 00:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

XBOX Fanboys

There's a large XBOX Fanboys community increasing since 2003. Maybe because Sony console was obsolete in short time.

• In other words, because there's a segment of American gamers that worships stat sheets and is less interested in actual games.
  • A demonstration- what a good idea! Rhobite 02:00, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Use of the term

A little justification for the paragraph in the article. Googling for combinations shows that there are plenty of Microsoft fanboys, Linux fanboys, PS2 fanboys, but no Rolex fanboys, and only a few Bush fanboys or Disney fanboys. There are also few fanboys for music (such as Beatles fanboys). Paranoid 22:55, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Defensive mode

Just an example of Doom3 fanboyism (very widespread behavior, because D3 is not as graphically superior as we were led to believe):

Ok stop comparing this game to crappy far cry. Far Cry sucked. It had really bad coding. Besides that dues ex2 and far cry are nothing compared to the technology in doom 3. Doom 3 has a amazing engine. So you should upgrade. [1]

Paranoid 22:55, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On a similar vein, one could also include fanboyism for computer hardware manufacturers; some prominent examples being: - CPU: Intel versus AMD - Video: ATi versus nVidia - System: Apple versus PC

Rewrite

I hate to be negative, but this article needs a rewrite. It's currently an opinionated essay - little can be saved. Examples of problems:

• "Sycophantic devotion", short attention span. Who says?
• "Since the term is primarily derogatory, most people do not understand why a person is labeled a fanboy." doesn't make sense
• Fanboy vs. criticism para - speculation
• Fangirl behavior - speculation
• "In reality most fanboys..." - speculation

A couple parts which could stay:

• Mentions of comic-book guy and Kevin Smith movies are good examples
• The murder thing is OK but needs to be NPOV

Fanboy is primarily an insult. Keep that. --m

Rhobite 23:53, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite?

Having had nothing to do with this article till now when I looked it up for myself, I hope I can be considered fairly unbiased. It seems to be pretty obvious that a term meant to be derogatory MUST have non-neutral statements in it's definition. Of course it's going to be opinionated. I'd like to see someone write a neutral article on the term "weak minded relativist hippie" without mentioning the negative loading of the term. Birge

Maybe one can try to be better about saying up front that it is an epithet meant to imply so and so, but let's not get carried away with the NPOV stuff here. An article explicitly about a biased POV must contain a biased POV, no? Having said that, I do agree with the above comment in terms of the speculative issues.

Origin of the term

I've been researching, and I have yet to find the first use of the term. The earliest I can find is a 1995 episode of Freakazoid.

Comic book reader letters in the 80s at the latest. Do you know anything about TM Maple? Go research!--69.226.235.115 18:32, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fan boy actually pre-dates comic book culture. It refers to boys in Ancient Egypt who would ceaselessly fan royalty with giant palm fronds to cool them off during the day. Similarly, modern day Fan Boys ceaselessly attend to the objects of their adoration and worship. Same as it ever was...same as it ever was...

Rewrite

I've done a rewrite on the article, editing for objectivity, relevance, and conciseness. I feel, however, that it is not complete because of my own involvement in many activities that would label me a fanboy. Please review for objectivity, then remove rewrite stamp. --Revpfil 01:05, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

-note: "weak minded relativist hippie" - a disparaging term used to imply a person holds non-confrontational, non-conformist, or environmentalist views solely because of the influence of media or activist groups.

No need to rewrite, the article is based on real experience and facts. --Mateusc 03:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We try not to base articles here on personal experience, but I agree that it's much better than before. It did need a rewrite, and someone was nice enough to rewrite it. Rhobite 05:04, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Does not have nothing excessively with the article. I assume that you has been offended with stereotypes, saw yourself portrayed in them. It's simple: Fanboism is negative behavior and you don't need much time to see and to evidence they are inapt socially people and extremely aggressive in the anonymity. I consider that must add links for illnesses as social phobia, because the Fanboys almost all have it. Maybe expand the article explaining about new generation of cowards in the Internet making intense use of anonymity. Mateusc 22:34, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome to try to improve the article further, but please read the Wikipedia:No original research policy first. It is not appropriate to add personal observations to an article. Also, please watch the personal attacks. This is not a debate forum, nor is it a place to start a flamewar. Rhobite 22:52, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Categories?

I think the article could use a few categories such as "video game fanboys", "comic book fanboys", "movie fanboys" (i.e. Star Wars, etc), with examples of each. Different groups of fanboys have unique behavior.

Also, what would one call a person who obsesses over a video game series for its storyline and ignores gameplay, preferring only to add to the story at the expense of gameplay? There currently is no known term for such, and "fanboy" may not be the correct term. Yet, people who feel that way typically are very obsessive and defensive over their interests, taking the idea that their favorite video game series was designed to be fun to play rather than to be a story, as a personal insult. So "fanboy" could describe them.

I think categories of different forms of fanboy behavior and/or interests could flesh this article out more. There is much variety to be found in the world of fanboys.

- CGally81

Music Fanboiism

Something very missing from this, in my opinion, is the music fanboi. Someone who over idolizes one band, can't take criticism of them, and goes as far as to dress and act like them. Amongst people I know, the term is rarely used for anything else these days, just fans of certain bands - Linkin Park and KoЯn in particular. Kiand 13:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The Heavy Metal musics stimulate their fans to hate other bands of other genres. Ozzy is a classic example.

Don't forget the emo/screamo-kids...

Don't forget _____(music type I do not like)____. This whole word "fanboy" can be easily summed up as "A guy who's into stuff the speaker doesn't like."24.33.28.52 00:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Fanboy Vandal

Yes, Fanboys are vandals in Wikipedia too. [2] [3] [4] [5] --Mateusc 00:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

lol @ category

Category: men

origins?

Was this term in circulation before Freakazoid popularized it? --Carl 13:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Merged to Fan (aficionado)

This article has been merged with Fan (aficionado) in order to make one robust article instead of two weak articles. --nihon 17:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, because the term currently getting notoriety in video games industry.

FYI

Just thought I'd drop in to let you all know, I think the article is looking rather ugly.(Momus 02:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC))

NPOV

I think this article needs some NPOV editing. Post what you think. --LeoNomis 06:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

---

The whole Mac fanboi and Microsoft fanboi thing was a bit off-centre. I've edited them to say essentially the same thing. Jarrod 11:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the POV tag, which was in the wrong place anyway. I think trying to discuss Fanboys with totally neutral language would be like talking about the art of painting without mentioning color. Anyway, it can be put back if anyone wants it. KarlBunker 19:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The Anime and Computer subsections of "Some common types of fanboys" are POV-loaded, though the Video game portion manages to keep a more reasonable balance. I think it is possible to write an article on this or any other topic without resorting to POV language. However, if I'm wrong and it is truly not possible, then the article will need to be burdened with a POV tag until such a time that the chosen one, gifted with the skills of editing wizardry, graces this world with his/her presence. --DavidGC 09:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that this page has an NPOV problem. If Anime and/or Computer fanboys behave as indicated here, then it is not POV to say that they do, even if saying so would disparage them. The problem that this article has in abundance is a violation of the policy on no original research. If you have things to say about fanboys because you read them in an article about fanboys or fandom, or got them from some other kind of verifiable source, go ahead and put those things in this article. If you are adding information to this article because you have observed the phenomenon or your friends have, then it has to come out. More than 50% of this article should not be here; in particular the entire "Some common types of fanboys" section has got to go. Vadder 19:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your viewpoint as well, and frankly view both POV and OS as major problems plaguing most of this article. I would have no problems with "Some common types of fanboys" being deleted wholescale. Fanboys can exist for any sort of medium, so a list is probably not practical or particularly useful. One or two sentences should suffice... something along the lines of, "Fanboys exist for various video game consoles, movies, cartoons, computer systems and programs, and a wide array of other media." However, this is already stated in different ways throughout the article. I also think the last paragraph of the "History of fanboys and the term" should go or be rewritten. --DavidGC 01:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Is "Wholescale" a word? Sycomonkey 00:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The common types are generally accurate. Skinnyweed 19:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge in Nintendophile article?

Per the tag currently on the article page, this is the place to discuss whether Nintendophile should be merged into the Fanboy article. I vote Yes. KarlBunker 02:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yes I vote yes. Gamerforever 17:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• No I vote no. The article on "nintendophile" should be expanded, though linked through the fanboy entry. Perhaps I will do that when I have time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.254.250 (talk • contribs) .
• Yes. what next, sonyboy and xhead? Garglebutt / (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• No I vote no. Merging will imply all fanboys are Nintendophiles, and vice-versa. This is generalization, and I personally think Wikipedia should be as objective as possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.92.89.207 (talk • contribs) .

Having "Nintendophile" as a subsection of the main "Fanboy" article will hardly imply that. It will just indicate that it's a subset of "Fanboy". --日本穣 06:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Yes if reduced to one line. Much of the nintendophile article describes behaviors already detailed in this article. If merged, it would be repetitive unless it's simply included in a list of types of fanboys as something like "Nintendophile -- name given to Nintendo fanboys". I do not think the entire article should be merged as-is. (edited) DavidGC 12:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Emphatic Yes. As it currently stands, Nintendophile barely has a couple paragraphs-worth of content. And there's really no reason to have separate articles about every different type of fanboy unless it can be established that a decent-sized article with good content (as opposed to fluff) can be written about it. In this case, there's not much that can be said about "Nintendophile" outside of what's already in the article. --日本穣 02:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually more inclined to delete as nonsense. Garglebutt / (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is gone guys. Why are people still debating? Garglebutt / (talk) 12:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably because they didn't realize it was gone. DavidGC 16:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources/References needed

This article reeks of original research, and therefore needs to have a large number of sources added for all the claims made within the article. --日本穣 02:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed a few of the {{fact}} tags since if we accept fanboy is a valid neologism then blahblah fanboy should be valid. Garglebutt / (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I've reworked quite a bit of the earlier section of the article to remove opinions, speculation and present the intended facts in a more neutral tone as some of it read like a justification for fanboy anti social behavior. Garglebutt / (talk) 09:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The "citation needed" notes are ridiculous. One can't find citations for statements like "In the mid 1990s, the emergence of slacker culture changed this image somewhat. Movies such as Kevin Smith's Jersey Trilogy (Clerks, Mallrats, and Chasing Amy), altered the image of the fanboy." If you think it should be removed, remove it, but don't leave those obnoxious "citation needed" notices. john k 20:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed all but that one and will do that to once I do some background on why this is here at all. I don't want to unilaterally remove them without explanation as the person who added them did have a point. Garglebutt / (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is this piece here?

Anime fanboys Anime is another fertile breeding ground for fanboys. Some notable examples are:

Dragon Ball Fanboys (get hung up on names, especially romaji) Sailor Moon Fanboys (very strict about manga continuity) Inuyasha Fangirls (generally, they're all female, but display all the traits of fanboys)

It's okay to mention that female fanboys exist, but don't put in an obvious bias like that. There are plenty of fanboys of Inuyasha. It's okay you didn't mention them but "generally they're all females" is unneeded, instead it should be replaced with a short explanation of what a fangirl is, even though that's extremely obvious.

Holverson

I added a mention of Doug Holverson's "Fanboy" character, which predates Aragones' by a number of years (but appeared in low-circ publications).

Autism?

I do not understand the associations being made with autism here. Autism is a manifestation of very serious neurological developmental problems, and I do not see the connection to your run-of-the-mill fanboy. I do not think this sort of a connection should be made in this article unless a clearer explanation can be given, so I've removed it for now.DavidGC 11:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought it was quite obvious:

restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and activities, as manifested by at least one of the following:

1. encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus

and 'fanboy' meaning utterly devoted to a single subject or hobby, often to the point where it is considered an obsession. Autistics are obsessed with things and so are fanboys. Skinnyweed 19:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This is particularly true of Asperger's Syndrome, a form of autism. PacificBoy 22:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Original research

This article does not cite any sources, so I added an {{unreferenced}} tag. I also removed the "types of fanboys" section - seemed to be an original research magnet. If there's been some sort of article listing notable types of fanboys we could use it as a reference, but if people are just coming here and adding their own take it's original research. What's to stop me from adding Daikatana fanboys, or basket-weaving fanboys, or watching-paint-dry fanboys? Rhobite 13:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your decision. A list of fanboys can never be exhaustive, since fanboys can exist for any type of medium. Therefore, I see little point in having such a section, when the same thing is conveyed through the following sentence: "Common subjects of reverence by fanboys are TV shows, movies, anime, cars, video game consoles, video games, operating systems, MMORPGs, and software companies." --DavidGC 01:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed here also. This whole page is about a word that basically translates as "Person who likes something that I, the speaker, do not" and then goes on to make tremendous assumptions about socializing, the relative value of entertainments and hobbies, etc. all from the point of view of the speaker. It's worth noting that people have a tendency to brand others as "fanboy" or "geek" when there's a large gulf of ignorance between their social groups, but actually trying to classify it as to which is "okay socially" and which is not? That's mavening.24.33.28.52 00:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... actually, I think it has less to do with the object of adoration and more to do with the degree to which someone is devoted to that object. --DavidGC 03:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

How come...

...fangirl redirects not to here, but to fan (aficionado)? Loganberry (Talk) 03:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

wrong link?

Uhm, the link to Freakazoid's "Fan Boy" entry is leading to an X-men page.

Some redirect business

Fanboys should redirect here, not to the film. Skinnyweed 19:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Done Skinnyweed 19:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Gender-neutral

Anyone know the gender-neutral term?? Georgia guy 14:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Fan-person. Wes of 09:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There really isn't one. The term to some extent mocks behavior patterns which are considered gender-specific in pop culture. --Orange Mike 14:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Fannish?

Since when has 'fannish' actually been a word? Is it in any dictionaries? SaintedLegion 22:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It's been attested at least as far back as 1948. Like a lot of other fandom-related terms, this is being documented for the Oxford English Dictionary. See here for more examples. --Orange Mike 14:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Stub

Shouldn't this article be tagged as a stub? Colonel Marksman 17:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Fan 'term'

I'm trying to find the term often used to describe the subject matter that a fanboy(girl, etc.) would be so anal about; namely the subject of debates on what is and what isn't 'canon' which has little or no bearing on the actual portrayal of the particular object of the fanboy\girl's obsession to the general public. I've heard this used to describe those Star Trek fans who debate over the real location of Federation Headquarters (San Francisco or Paris). I thought the term was 'fancrum' but can find no reference to it anywhere on Wikipedia. If there is no article on it in wikipedia I suggest that it should be at least mentioned in the fan article. --Thaddius 18:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

About Fanboys

Fanboy, while obviously saying boy is the gender neutral form of the word currently. Just like how "Man" can be used to reference both man and women in one go, even though it also stands for another gender in its' other uses.

Anyone looking for a source would be best to check out video game magazines. I can't remember the issue, but in GameInformer magazine they define fanboy's accurately along with fan neutral types. They have the following (this all from memory, but it's photographic :)): Irrational Fanboy, In-the-Closet, In-training fanboy, Hardcore fanboy, and normal person(normal person obviously isn't a fanboy, but is part of the 2 page article. The main key terms used to help define each version of fanboy in their article were the first words. Hardcore, Irrational, in-the-closet, and in-training. The place to look for the issue would be when the magazine transitioned from the N64 generation to the gamecube generation. It will be in one of the mags within a -14, +1 range, and that's if you can use it somehow as a source here. I'm not sure people will trust a magazine, no matter how credible it is on a site that's as heavily edited and debated as this one!

One more thing, the transitional mag had the tech specs of the playstation 2, gamecube, and gameboy advance in it. That should definitely help.

Car companies

Pretty much any car make has fanboys. Honda doesn't have fan boys? Toyota? Mercedes? Come on. --Bears54 01:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Japanese?

Isn't this term at least somewhat a Japanese-ish construction -- shouldn't Japan be mentioned? Also, it seems like Hikikomori should be mentioned -- to what extent are they fanboys? 69.87.203.33 21:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Shared pursuit?

To what extent do fanboys use the term to describe themselves? The article should clarify this, if possible. Can a person be the only fanboy of some subject? Or is it a group/team activity, at least socially/conceptually, even if carried out in individual isolation? To be a normal fanboy, do you have to be aware that there are others similar to you? Are there any official groups of fanboys? And, it seems too generalized to suggest that any person obsessed with anything could be called a fanboy. That might be true, but it seems like in general only some are. So the article should list the categories that are typically so regarded, and/or narrow down the situations where the term is typically used. The current article seems pretty good... 69.87.203.33 21:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Internet Explorer?

I have never heard of an Internet Explorer fanboy. I have heard of Opera and Firefox fanboys, but not IE fanboys. Most users use IE because it's whats there, right? Telepheedian 15:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

When did any form of linux start making their own hardware?

Like there is definitly no linux companies with their own hardware

IBM. Dumbass.

Linux distributions are operating systems, and most of the general public simply calls them "Linux". This article isn't the place for the old GNU/Linux argument. Please read the archives of Talk:Linux where it's been discussed to death. Thanks, and no personal attacks please. Rhobite 12:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog

Would it be accepted if I added to the section on things with fanboy/girl followings -- specifically added Sonic the Hedgehog? There is a HUGE fan following to that, believe me. Untii next edit, SonicBoom95 23:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Lots of things do have huge fan followings; that section is already far too long. --Orange Mike 00:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Fangirl distinction

It seems to me there should be a separate definition of fangirls, either in this article or in a separate one, since the physical characteristics are (in my experience) rarely the same. Fangirls tend to pay much more attention to their personal appearance, particularly at conventions, where they go out of their way to attract fanboys (and other fangirls) via enhanced cleavage, unusual cuts of clothing, character-inspired costumes, etc. Fanboys who dress to attract are exceptions.

Luke Ski is quoted twice in the existing article, but in addition to his song "Fanboy" he has written an elaborate if rather crass homage to fangirls, "Fangirls Shake That Booty," which pretty well summarizes what stereotypical fanboys look for in a woman. Every time I've seen him perform it, he's succeeded in filling the stage with doting and obliging (and often scantily clad) fangirls.

Just my two cents. ZaneRokklyn 18:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a grossly exaggerated and sweeping generalization. For every mistress of the "jelly on a plate" school of enhanced cleavage display, there are dozens of shy fangirls, or those who just don't care to play that game. (And yes, there are bare-chested fanboys too, including some who shouldn't advertise such shoddy goods.) --Orange Mike 22:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing "Subject of obsession" section; please don't restore

I am once again removing this section, as it is subject to partisanship and cheap-shot additions. Every topic has its fanboys. Please do not restore it! --Orange Mike 13:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I second that. There is no limit to the number of things that fanboys can obsess on. If all of the things that fanboys currently obsess on were to vanish from the space/time continuum, we would find new things to obsess on in no time. The subjects of obsession section is unmanageable and unverifiable. Think about it: would there ever be a time when that list was so correct that a reader is not going to say "Hey, they left an important one out!" or "That doesn't belong there! That's not a fanboy obsession but a proper field of interest."? The list will never be correct in that sense, so let's not have it. Vadder 15:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Here we go: an actual source!!! (USA Today)

USA Today did an article on the San Diego ComicCon: [6] It's mostly about how Hollywood is trying to figure out the fanboy. There's got to be some material we can refer to and source. Vadder 01:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This presumes, however, that the McPaper is correct in using the term. A lot of folks at ComicCon are not fanbosy, ya know. --Orange Mike 01:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Offensive

I have to say in my own defense as being a nintendo fanboy that in the videogame fanboys section it talks about fanboys like vivious animal like the kind of person who you wouldnt wanna run into it says that fanboys are rude and nearl savage please change this as its not true for im a fanboy but that doesnt make me an asshole.

Yes, it makes.

fanboys - confined to Videogames

yeah, although literary meaning refers to anyone supporting a product blindly, world economy seems to suggest that apart from videogames, people search and find a better deal instead of blind support. However, when it comes to videogames, better, cheaper, doesnot make any difference. A sect(cult) of fanboys blindly uphold their gamees as their children.

Moreover, i feel an article can be written about the most popular fanboys on the planet. I mean, its fact. so why hide it?

that Sanas guy some one mentioned in this talk page tops that list by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.87.132.2 (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)