Talk:FanFiction.Net

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fan Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fan Fiction articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the FanFiction.Net article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Archive
Archives
*Archive 1 - December 30, 2006

Contents

[edit] An attempt at a more neutral presentation of the criticisim section

This is a simple attempt at a more neutral presentation of the criticism section. I've not tried to make any changes to content, but rather simply mitigate bias. I recognize that it's still not ideal-- if given time I shall search for specific criticisms that can be referenced (though, for what it's worth, the comments that the current author made are indicative of many complaints I have come across. Still, far from academic). If the changes are posted, they probably should be posted with a non-citation tag.

The primary complaints regarding the site involve quality control issues, inconsistent and unreviewed moderation, and the ponderous size of the archive itself.

Critics point out that the quality of the stories on the site tends to vary greatly. Since story contribution is open to anyone, there is no filter for the skill of the authors or for proper editing of the story before posting. It has also been contended that many authors do not avail themselves of the after-posting editing tools available.

Complaints regarding moderation center around the lack of information presented to authors whose stories are deleted and the potential for the system to be abused by other users. Because of the sheer volume of contributions, works that are reported to violate the standing rules of the site are not necessarily reviewed before deletion. Authors are generally given neither explicit information about the nature of the violation, nor an avenue for appeal. In addition, contributions that violate the rules are not sought out, but rather are deleted only when reported.

Finally, the size of the archive is seen by many to be a detriment to the goal of creative expression and peer review. The sheer number of contributions limits the exposure of the individual works and hinders the ability of readers to find the stories or kind of stories that they are interested in, even through use of the search function.

Critics of the site often support smaller sites limited to fanfictions of specific works or groups of works. A smaller subset of the sites advocated involve approval-limited posting and reviewed moderating. Such sites, however, can be seen as serving a different purpose than FanFiction.net: rather than an open forum for contribution, the are more analogous to a selected collection of works.

128.227.13.73Anon 1/14/07

[edit] wikiProject Fan Fiction

This article should probably be added to the wikiProject Fanfiction rather than deleted. It seems unwise to completely remove information dealing with the largest forum for something which is not itself being considered for deletion (rather it has been slated for the article improvement drive). The least thorough treatment of the subject that would seem appropriate would be a more expansive treatment under the fan fiction article.

While it would be nice to see some outside verification of the site's hegemonic status, I don't believe that I've ever seen it disputed by any other fan fiction site or any third party.

The article, however, could clearly be more directly tied to the related topics.

128.227.13.73 11:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)anon 1/14/07

That would be nice. It seems that the WikiProject Fan Fiction is inactive though. If anyone is interested in reviving the project, feel free to contact me. --Imaginationac (Talk | Edits) 19:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles about the Web and websites in general

In my opinion, articles about websites and the web in general are by nature not going to be written the way a historical or literary entry would be. Websites are always changing, citations are difficult due to the fact that websites often have a single creator (the site god) and therefore are subject to the mind of the creator. This particular article told me everything I felt I needed to know about ff.net. To treat websites the same as regular encyclopedia entries would be like trying to treat chat-speak like you would an entry in Webster's. One day the word/site didn't exist and the next day it did. Entries should be as accurate as possible, but they don't have to be precise, leave that to the historical anthropologists of the future . . . they'll need something to justify their government grants.

143.45.64.68 08:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Elaura (06FEB07)

[edit] MSTing

I read once that Fanfiction.net didn't allow MSTing to be posted. Is there any info on this? Reverend Raven 06:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This is true, it's one of the things that they specificaly prohibit, I do believe. HunterBlackLuna 05:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion-Not For This

I'm not talking about deleting this, but I have seen posts for virtual series sites (such as MZP) be deleted for not being a mainstream, necesity of an article. Why should other writing forums and sites be deleted if this isn't?

Phoenix 00:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the specifics of the site you posted. I suggest reading the deletion vote and then figuring it out from there - but most likely - popularity.Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/|(Can you help me with my signature?) 21:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter subcatogory introduction paragraph - suggest deletion or move

It's too specific to exist as introductory information for an article. It also seems to create some bias just because of where it is in the article. The last two sentences that follow it also apply to the site in general, so as they stand the meaning could be misconstrued. I suggest deleting the information on Harry Potter or moving it to/creating a relevant heading or subheading. Imaginationac 20:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Fanfiction.net

There are good things and bad things about this site. It is true that authors put up disclaimers, but companies can still issue copyright. I just wanted to say that I think this article should say something about the age ranges that should read fanfictions at Fanfiction.net.68.110.232.148 20:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not up to wikipedia to create guidelines - unless the site says bluntly, this is meant for people this age and up, then we can't do anythingDaniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/|(Can you help me with my signature?) 21:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think they mean that the ratings people give to their stories "K", "K+", "T", "NC-17", and "M" if I remember correctly.--Buffyfan7420 23:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fanfiction talk

I think that fanfiction.net is actually a good way for people with a lot of fantasy. I'm also a user of it.But there's a slight problem. Today I got on the homepage but all the forums(actually everything) has got an error 404. That's really stupid now and the worst thing is they don't fix it.But yeh we stay hoping. Flames from haters of ff. can always email me. I will be glad so then I can improve the site with the help of the others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tomoky (talk • contribs) 11:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

What does this have to do with the article - keep in mind what wikipedia talk pages are for.Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/|(Can you help me with my signature?) 13:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fanfiction talk

I think that fanfiction and other similiar sites are actually quite good for people with a lot of fantasy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tomoky (talk • contribs) 11:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

This talk page is for discussing the Wikipedia article on FanFiction.Net, not about whether or not it's a good site or whether reading or writing fan fiction is good or bad for you. *Dan T.* 14:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed cleanup notice

I think the article has been improved to a point that it generally follows the five pillars of Wikipedia that it no longer needs the "Cleanup" notice. On another note, I archived discussions previous to 2007. --Imaginationac (Talk | Edits) 19:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Collapse"

Who is "they"? Who is calling it "dead"? Without citations for these allegations, there's no real proof of this. True, the email alerts aren't sending right now, but FF.net regularly has these problems in my experience. And I haven't given up hope on it. So who says we remove this until there is actual evidence that the site is "dead"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.7.123.76 (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

I have tested the latter statement out by using the account i used to find sources for information (the latter statement being that the notices (alerts was it?) won't send). It seems correct to me, so I would keep it on for now, so all we need is a source. I can't seem to find any way to tell if users have declared it dead or not though ... perhaps I will try to find a "Contact Us" button and get some more info.danielfolsom© 02:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
You have my word as an accomplished fanficcer that it the emails are most certainly down, and that it has happened in the past. Although, and I don't know if it is relevant, no messages have been left on the front home page since feb 07. Seems to me that the messages were fairly regular. There is no "Contact Us" button, just an email address that has never worked for me, and a support website with similar results. THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 04:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Ya, again I completely agree that the emails are down (I have an account set up there to find sources for WP), and as the to the messages, it seemed a big deal at first, but there have been some fairly - large breaks in notices before.danielfolsom© 05:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking that perhaps, as 82.7.123.76 mentioned, it shouldn't be mentioned that it shouldn't be called "dead" or that people have "lost faith"; this is most likely just an angry fanficcer rebelling against the system - or loss of it! In regard to the messages and email downage, usually they would tell you that the system would be down in advance, and it would not be for such short a time. THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 06:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with posting new chapters seemed to of been fixed, as I can now put up new ones. But I still am not getting any new emails on actions about my stories. Yes, we cannot just say that the site just stopped, but what if it has. I've emailed FFN three times before this and I have gotten a response, but this time none. Punk18

Again, I'm not really associated with the site beyond my wiki-account, however if it has shut down - then eventually there will probably be some kind of notice somewhere that we can cite.danielfolsom© 21:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I killed the section - we don't need it - it was becommming a place for little fan girls and boys to chat (see this). Since it's been said that it never really happened - than that means it was just a minor technical error- no big deal, not encyclopedic.danielfolsom 15:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Totally with you on that one. The emails are slowly filtering back in now, proving it does work after all. THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 01:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple entries

I checked, there's several slightly different wikipedia entries of fanfiction.net. Someone who knows how to should redirect those to the same and most recent one.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=fanfiction+net&fulltext=Search for a list of articles found.

Also, an update on the fictionpress part, verifiable: the various contact and support links that are missing from fanfiction.net still exist there, but their pages do not. It may also have lost its css file, but that's not easily verified.

88.115.46.13 19:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The redirects already existed. --Imaginationac (Talk | Edits) 21:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fanfiction Types

Does anyone here think there should be a section that defines different fanfiction slang, such as fluff, flames, smut, etc.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.224.103 (talk • contribs)

No, this isn't an article on Fanfiction - it's an article on fanfiction.net, if you want, and assuming you could find reliable sources, you could add that here.danielfolsom 00:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Why would we need a section here? Wikipedia already has an entire article dedicated to fan fiction terminology. --Luigifan 01:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Potentially useful source

Documenting the historical growth of FF.N: [1] and the raw data at [2] showing the remarkable growth rate of the site between 2000 and 2002. This should be considered a reliable source, because the author has presented papers on the subject of fanfic at academic conferences. JulesH 14:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] can someone add this

can someone add how to make a story or post a story i mean it is useful in my opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.166.254.137 (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No - just because information is useful doesn't mean that it should go on wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't a "how to" guide.--danielfolsom 01:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The site does a fairly good job of explaining itself. Just look in your profile (if you have one.) Also, keep in mind that there is a three-day limit before a new user can submit stories or participate at the forums; this is meant to serve as a sort of "troll shield". It's annoying, to be sure, but it makes sense. --Luigifan 01:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prod

I don't think this article ought to be deleted; the site is one of the major leading fan fiction sites, and is very influential in that community; anyway, it's not true that there are no external sources; a Time magazine article is linked to. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I honestly didn't see the Time article, and if I had I wouldn't have added the prod tag. Thank you for catching my oversight. Karanacs (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I love fanfiction, and I love this site dearly, as I am an active fanfiction writer as well. However, I have to say that a problem template has been added to this article since December 2007, and nothing has been done to address it. Furthermore, this article is in very bad shape. If we merge to fan fiction, that article has various ref links we can link to and it would further enhance that article as well. Fanfiction.net finally gets a nicely written section about it and fan fiction gets a lively expansion. Its a win/win situation!

So…yes, or no? I’ll be putting up a merge template soon. --haha169 (talk) 04:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Think about it Fan fiction is a type of fiction, fanfiction.net is a WEB SITE, a place, not a thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Not G. Ivingname (talk • contribs) 20:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not a good argument. There could be an article about search engines, and a section concerning Google within it. Search engines is a type of tool, while Google is a website. --haha169 (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I've reopened the Wikipedia Project, Fan Fiction. One of the alternate pages could be lists (and/or explanations) of the various types of Fan Fiction. Breakdown by genre? book/audio/sites? Any ideas? -- deepsack (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we should merge them. It doesn't seem like a very good idea to me. --Kcharles (talk)Kcharles (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Charles, could you expand on your reasons please? I understand the argument for merging, but I don't yet understand the argument for not merging. It would really help to hear your thinking on this. deepsack (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
ff.net is a website. it is not the substance of fan fic. I think that there should be a ff.net section in the fan fic article, but there should also be an article dedicated to the site itself. Jcsavestheday (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)jcsavestheday
I know that there should be, but I proposed the merge because the ff site article is not up to WP:MoS standards, and nobody seems to be trying to fix it. --haha169 (talk) 05:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)