Talk:FanFiction.Net/Archive 2

An Attempt At A More Neutral Presentation of The Criticism 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

I have had problems with their support for several months in uploading files. You select a .doc or .htm file to upload, the status changes to 'waiting for fanfiction.net' then 'Done'. However no files are actually uploaded. I've emailed both support, admin, and root about this, but the emails must get sent to /dev/null, as there's nothing ever done or replied to. Karanne (talk) 12:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Despite any truth in your statements, Karanne, they constitute original research, and must be backed up with reliable sources. I have removed them for the time being. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 07:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

76.224.173.222 (talk) 09:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)== 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)

   Actually, they don't allow "NC-17", which would be called "MA", and are actually 18+ stories, not 17+ stories. They should put more about what the ratings mean in the article, though. "M" is 16+, with some gore or violence or sexual content, though nothing extremely graphic, and much language. "T" is like "PG-13", could have violence, maybe some gore, some language, and light sexual content. "K+" would be the same thing as, in video game terms, "E-10" or, in movie terms, "PG". Very little language, no real sexual content (not counting minor things like kissing), maybe some violence, unlikely to have any level of gore. And "K", is like "E" or "G". No language, probably no sexual content (including kissing), no violence, no gore. These are usually very light, fluffy, humor fics. Oftentimes, stories are given this rating when they depict the characters in their childhood (for example, in the Death Note fandom, a Wammy-era story with Near, Matt, and Mello, though considering the popularity of the pairing Mello/Matt, these are also sometimes rated "K+" or "T").

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Isn't the real solution, then, that a few people take it upon themselves to fix up this article? In my opinion a merge isn't the best option. Fanfiction and Fanfiction.net are two different things that each need their own seperate article. In my (admittedly humble) opinion, it would be easier just to merge them, but it makes more sense to fix this article and bring it up to standards. But that's just my opinion. Voltair3 (talk) 04:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Against I am against the merge as FF.net is an independant website. Yes, it has fanfiction inside, but how would ff.net fit into the fanfiction article? Maybe a small section would work but a full on merge would be pointless. Does fanfiction have members, an owner, a website, a launch date, is it commercial? Hopefully someone understands what I'm getting at. I mean, a small section would work, but a merge would be useless as it would expand the fanfiction article to cover something barely related to it. A small section would be better as it could be small details about ff.net and then have a link to the full article so that those interested could visit this article and read and see the complete and fully detailed article about ff.net. Make sense? ArmoredPersonel (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand what you're saying. A small section could work, but the main issue is, this article is probably one of the worst around the site. It could do with some serious fixing, but I am at loss on how to do so. Website articles are generally one of the hardest articles to write, especially one that isn't always written about in the media. Check out the Google search article on ideas to fix this article. --haha169 (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Against Simply because an article is poorly written does not mean it should be merged with another article. ff.net should perhaps be mentioned briefly in the overarching fanfiction article, but fanfiction.net is an entirely different topic that deserves an article of its own. Fanfiction is a general genre of writing, so to speak, and fanfiction.net is a specific website for that genre. While the two could conceivably be combined, the best solution seems to be to improve this article (the ff.net article) and perhaps mention it in the more general fanfiction article. Alinnisawest (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

New Comment After reading the article thoroughly, I really have to say that it's not all *that* bad. I've read many articles that are far, far worse. So to say it should be merged because it's "one of the worst articles on the site" doesn't make sense. Sure, it needs work, but so do most articles. Alinnisawest (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry. I've given up on the merger quite a long time ago. However, there are quite a few refs on the main fanfiction page that could be really useful here. Who wants to do the work? --haha169 (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Who runs it and owns it?

Is there any information about the people behind ff.net? Who owns it? Who runs it? Where are they based?

91.84.253.213 (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Fanfiction login errors and other glitches

As a user of this very fine site I am struggling to realise why login is currently suffering from a technical glitch which has been going on for at least three days? For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 07:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not experiencing that glitch you mentioned, but like you said, it's a glitch and therefore a minor problem.

Also, this is not a forum or complaints desk. Thank you. :) --Animeronin (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think what the user is referencing is the fact that FanFiction.net as well as its two sister sites have been in an unannounced read-only mode since what appears to be late Saturday night/early Sunday morning -500 GMT. Site content can be read, but other message boards report that virtually all users are unable to log into accounts, post content, or comment on content. Possible deadpool? Algonquinrt (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC) -Animeronin (talk) 13:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so it's an "unannounced read-only mode"? No wonder he mentioned that problem here. My apologies, Algonquinrt, for how I worded my response to Nemesis646's post.

Something certainly has happened and people are opening up one yahoo answer question after another (36 as I am writing this; look for "fanfiction login") as no one there seems to be replying to email or even posting on the main page what is going on. I've also noticed that they stopped posting their monthly announcements after December 18, 2008 so I am wondering if anyone is actually managing this site anymore or left it in autopilot mode and it finally found a mountain--the hard way.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

At least one user has reported contact with site management recently with regard to a suspended account and deleted content, and moved the story in question to a LiveJournal site, so I'd assume there is some site management, but the lack of communication is certainly questionable with regard to the future viability of the site. Ads still seem to be getting served; I wonder if any advertisers have had contact? Algonquinrt (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like they finally got things fixed but there still isn't anything on the News page after December 18, 2008 which makes me wonder if only part of the people supposedly working on it are actually there.--64.184.234.16 (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I was only asking what was going on, not complaining. Anyway, it was fixed but appears to have just repeated itself once again. For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Update, nevermind, just a slight error on my PC I've sorted out. For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think alot more should be mentioned in the criticism section of this page about Fanfictions monthly glitches. -sixshooter500

Fanfiction Reference section - 404 error

The link on the first reference (History of Fan Fiction) leads to a page that no longer exists.Susanmgarrett (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

FanFiction Terms

Shouldn't there be a section on the terms that FF-users use on the site? It can really be helpful in my opinion.WikiGirl1301 (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that idea was suggested earlier, and it was noted that there is a separate article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_fiction_terminology) dealing with fanfiction terminology. --Falconrok5 (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

shouldnt an article summary be included in the fanfiction page like most animes do with episode/charecter lists? Ryukage19 (talk) 04:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Citation found for list of authors asking for site not to archive

You can find it on http://www.fanfiction.net/guidelines/ at the bottom of the page. Sorry, I'm no good with citations. Katraan (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Book Crossovers

I honestly think that book crossovers are really cool, they should talk about them. There are four most popular book crossovers. 1. Harry Potter and Twilight 2. Harry Potter and A Series of Unfortunate Events. They all have New York Times best selling series including Percy Jackson. They always pick on these four stories for their rivalry, such as Count Carlisle, who is the legal gaurdian of the Swans. People like to pick on The Littlest Elf. Also for there countless and devoted fans, such as two friends getting over a fight over Jacob and Edward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheVioletBaudelaire (talk • contribs) 04:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Mobile version

Somewhere on here we should probably talk about the mobile version that was just launched. I'm honestly not sure where to put it, though. And does anyone know anything about it other than the fact that, well, it exists? 166.102.26.165 (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

According to the front page news, the mobile version was launched on May 25, 2010. Doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

- PM800 (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

"Disallowed fanfiction and bans"

This section is clearly written, or at least co-written, by somebody who is bitter about the website's bans. Sentences like "It remains unclear exactly why FF.Net sought to ban these sorts of stories, considering that this kind of story is actually available on bookstore bookshelves" reveal a tone with an agenda. Minaker (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

ACTUALLY...

'Recently, a new feature was added which enabled the user to toggle profanity in reviews and forums on and off. This was intended to be implemented for stories as well for the lower ratings but, due to reactions from users, the attempt was abandoned.[citation needed]'

The ability to toggle profanity is still a part of the site.

Reviews: Log in, and at the bottom of the very first page, the last option is 'Profanity Filter.' (Enable/Disable)

Forums:When creating a forum, one of the options will be 'Filter Profanity in Posts' (Enable/Disable)

So obviously, you can take that out, as it is incorrect. Go create an account and see for yourself.

If someone doesn't do it in a few days, I will, no worries. :) 24.179.27.28 (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, I deleted two lines from the 'Copyright' section, the ones that seemed un-neutral. If you have a reason why I should put it back, I'm welcome to discuss it with you. I think that the section is pretty neutral, now. 24.179.27.28 (talk) 16:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

FF.net?

Lead sentence: "FanFiction.Net (often abbreviated as FF.Net or FFN) is ..." Should it be noted anywhere that the actual FF.net apparently has nothing to do with FanFiction.net? Type it in and you are instead taken to Pantsu.net, which appears to be some sort of anime-related site. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Need Help Updating and Improving Article

I want to start improving this article, but I need help. For starters, I'm going to update the "Popular Sections" section and change it to 30, 29 is just an odd number to do. Should I make it 15 or 20, because once you get down to about the 22nd one, the numbers become pretty close. DianeKurohyou (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Base the "popular sections" on what reliable secondary sources say about the subject. What do newspaper articles, books, etc. say what is popular? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, in this case, the "Popular Section" source is Fanfiction.net itself. It's simply a list of what fandoms have the most stories posted. But I do need a lot of help in the rest of the article, trying to make sure the information is accurateDianeKurohyou (talk) 05:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's still preferable to let secondary sources be the guides, especially if FF.net doesn't explicitly say "these are our most popular. In general articles should be mostly based on secondary sources. If you can find reliable secondary sources that state which ones are the most popular, then it would be preferable.

At some point I'll see if I can find more articles on FF.net. I'm sure that some articles may say "X and X are the site's most popular" so if I find the info, I'll add it :) WhisperToMe (talk) 05:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

What if we rename the "Popular sections" section as "Largest sections", since that's what it is? And then if WhisperToMe or anybody else finds secondary sources that talk about what's popular, we could make a separate "Popular sections" section above that, as another subsection of "Site structure". Princess Lirin (talk) 05:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me :) WhisperToMe (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

the problem with ff is that there is no way to tell what story is popular over another. there simply is no rating system in place or a way to list what story has more favorites over another. Ryukage19 (talk) 04:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The image was updated

Despite the claim that I was somehow "Wrong" in this revert, the screenshot of FanFiction.net was in fact updated to reflect how the site appeared on May 27, 2011. Yesterday, at approximately 12:15 a.m. EDT, I uploaded a new version of File:Fanfictionhomepage.PNG. My new version has slight differences from the older version, which had been added on March 31, 2009. The newer version includes a new "mobile edition" link (located at the top center of the image), there no longer being a "Dictionary" link, a different company logo (top left of image), and "Books" among the crossover links not being purple. Additionally, the "News" section is different.

To avoid any possible confusion, this here is a direct link to the old version of the file. This here is a direct link to the current version of the file. If you compare them, you will clearly see the differences I have stated above. FanFiction.net has most definitely changed its appearance since April 2009. If for some odd reason displaying a two-year-old image is preferred over displaying a new one, File:Fanfictionhomepage.PNG should be reverted to its March 31, 2009 revision. If displaying something newer is preferred, I humbly accept any apologies I may be owed. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

For some reason, mine is still displaying the old image whenever I click on it in the article. Which I think is the problem here. I'm not sure it got replaced properly, so the old image is still showing up, despite there being a newer image. Can someone figure out why this is happening? DianeKurohyou (talk) 02:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

On my computer, the small image in the article updated right away but on May 27 when I clicked to the large version it showed the old image. However, when I checked it today it now shows the correct image. I've had this happen with another image that was updated and kept the same filename. I'm not sure whether it's something with the way our computers cache the image or whether it's how the MediaWiki software handles images. Maybe both. I tried looking for info in Wikipedia or MediaWiki help, but it's a rare enough occurrence that I haven't found anything yet.

Have you tried refreshing your cache? That might help narrow down whether it's a computer-specific thing or a wiki thing. Princess Lirin (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Most popular erotic website?

From the article: "It is the most popular erotic website for women." Really, now? --Dasgoogle (talk) 11:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That was my reaction, too... phttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:StoryMakerEchidna StoryMakerEchidna (talk)] 20:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

If you dispute it, please provide sources countering the existing WSJ source. --NeilN talk to me03:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Most Popular Section

Changing it back to "Most Popular Sections" because "Largest Section" is a not really a good title for the section, and most popular is accurate because it's a list of the most popular sections on Fanfiction.net. 71.251.131.121 (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)DianeKurohyou

RPF ban

correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this article used to have a mention about there being RPF on the site until 2002? How come the banning of RPF isn't mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RicheylovesJames (talk • contribs) 08:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

"Most popular erotic website" statement

I don't know how active others are on this page, but I removed a statement that felt really out of place and worded in a way that could be misleading. It read "It is the most popular erotic website for women." I couldn't find a good spot for the information, and I deleted the sentence. Is anyone really against this?--IsisAthenaArtemis 03:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. It's notable and referenced. --NeilN talk to me 03:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Then is there another place where it could fit in? It reads like a bit of an afterthought. Does it really fit in with "site structure"?--IsisAthenaArtemis 03:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I've renamed the section "Site content" as much of it was discussing content, not structure. --NeilN talk to me 03:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)