I see “Expanded Universe” and “setting” used a lot. As in, “The Star Wars EU”, or “the Underworld setting”. I also see “Canon” used that way; “The Canon Harry Potter setting”.
Note that the term “canon” is generally an attempt to reduce the number of books (or sometimes other media) that should be considered to be within the shared universe (or whatever term you’re using) for a particular literary (or whatever) creation. Thus, a writer may have written a number of books about a character. He may then have authorized certain other writers to write books of their own about the character or his estate may have authorized those particular writers to continue the series after his death. Other writers may then have written books about the character without being authorized. The writer or the estate may declare that only the writer’s books and the authorized later books are part of the canon (or, equivalently, are canonical works). The other books are declared to be not in the canon (or, equivalently, are not canonical works).
Honestly, I think this thread has taught me that I’m trying to lump a lot of slightly different things into one term and that’s probably not possible. There’s a certain “headspace” around various fictional canons that I’m trying to put into words but failing. That’s likely a failing on my part, or maybe a result of trying to generalize too much.
So, are we talking about things like the Wold-Newton Family and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen? I’d class them broadly as a type of Metafiction.
This is the first I’d heard of Farmer’s concept. That sounds fun. 
While it’s relatively common to discuss events of a particular story as if they really happened within the fiction, I kind of think that the really strong “Let’s All Pretend This Really Truly Happened” impulse is largely confined to Sherlock Holmes fandom. It’s the Sherlockians who have developed “The Game,” and developed it to such an extent that there are entire scholarly articles, or even books, published on the Holmes stories that go out of their way to pretend Arthur Conan Doyle did not exist (or, at the very least, was just some friend of Watson who helped him get the stories published).
Despite years of experience in Star Trek fandom, I never noticed quite that level of “Game”-playing. While we would discuss the fictional world of the Federation, and could fanwank like nobody’s business, it wasn’t in any way forbidden or discouraged to occasionally mention Gene Roddenberry’s name, or to acknowledge that ultimately there were writers and producers and actors behind all of this. I’ve never seen, in any discussion of Star Trek, a statement like “But this might lead us to believe that Captain Picard and his crew are simply fictional characters–and such a suggestion is surely ludicrous.” But sentences like that frequently occur in Sherlockian articles.
By the same token, nobody who’s discussing or writing about Lord of the Rings seems to go out of their way to avoid mentioning Tolkien.
I think I understand the kind of very extreme Pretend-It’s-Real scholarship that you’re talking about. But I think it’s a bit more limited than you suggest. There may be others that I’m not aware of, but it’s only in Holmes fandom that I’ve seen it taken to these extremes. And within Sherlockian circles, to the extent that it has a name, that name is “The Game.”
I always liked the terms canon and non-canon. Sounds better to me than fanfic.
The issue here is that “non-canon” and “fanfic” aren’t necessarily synonymous. Going back to Star Trek, for a long time the general rule was that only the TV shows and movies were canonical. The Star Trek novels and comic books were not. Those novels and comics were not fan-fiction. They were professionally published works, authorized by Paramount, who made money from them. But they were not considered “canonical”–that is, they were not considered to have “really happened.” If one of the TV shows (back in the days when there were TV shows on the air) wanted to do a particular story, they would feel no obligation to adhere to any continuity established within the novels.
For a long time, a lot of people also considered the Star Trek animated series, done by Filmation, to be non-canonical as well. Supposedly because Gene Roddenberry said it wasn’t. Although I’ve never been able to track down where and when he actually said this. I’ve been able to find a lot of other people saying that he said it, but I’ve never seen a true citation for him actually saying it.
By the way, if you ever are hankering for some pretentious English major cred, rather than using the terms “Watsonian” and “Doylist,” try diegetic (meaning “within the fiction”) and extra-diegetic (meaning “outside the fiction”). Really impresses the literary snobs.
His two “biographies” mentioned in the article are a lot of fun, especially if you are very familiar with Tarzan and Doc Savage.
I think this may actually be a usage of those terms that’s specific to fan discourse. I almost mentioned this in my last post, but decided not to as I’m not actually enough of a literary snob to be confident I correctly understand the scholarly use of these terms. But the Wikipedia entry on diegesis seems consistent with what I remember from college: in scholarly usage, “diegetic” and “extradiegetic” or “non-diegetic” refer to elements of the creative work itself.
For instance, in a film or TV show diegetic music is music that exists within the fictional world and is heard (or at least imagined) by the characters while non-diegetic music is heard by the viewer but not the characters. This scene from Grosse Pointe Blank gets humor out of switching from non-diegetic music when the John Cusak character is outside the convenience store to a diegetic, Muzak version of the same song when he goes inside.
No, it refers to fans who write stories based on an authors’ works. As a rule, they AREN’T published, since then that would be a copyright violation. Most of them are just for fun.
They’re more like, “what if”. They run the gamut from really horrid to pretty damned good.