This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Fansite article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 16 September 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Kareeser 21:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Should there be some information on Fanlistings?
Maybe. Fanlistings, as stated by TFL, do not have to contain extra content besides the general rules, members, join form, etc. Thus, fanlistings are not exactly fansites in the usual definition. I might add something to it though.-- Haley 21:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
One of the...No THE one thing that bugs me the most is probably the "typical navigation" section, which I find entirely pointless.
Perhaps that merging the few paragraphs about typical content could also be good, along with some rewording/clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puceron ( talk • contribs) 01:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
For me, fansites define my early experience with the WWW, especially those with really poorly designed layouts, usually made by teenagers (like myself, back in the day). It's a shame I don't frequent them any more. I'm sure contemporary fansites are still all over the internet, as well as remnants of abandoned websites (with those lovely and awful late-90s/early-00s web designs) and GeoCities (R.I.P.) mirrors. And let's not forget fanlistings! I'm sure I'm not the only person who remembers fanlistings as being nothing more than vanity websites for two groups: 1) for amateur web designers who've just discovered CSS and Adobe Photoshop to flex their new-found web 1.5 skills, and 2) for people to add their contrived web handle to frivolous website listings in order to feel like they are a part of this new cultural phenomenon. I miss those days. - 220.245.253.81 ( talk) 13:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, but the talk pages usually are associated with trying to improve the article. 67.160.117.123 ( talk) 22:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Regarding Fan Site Kits, since it goes hand in hand with the Fan Site topic, should we add that too? I can't find any good information that defines Fan Site Kits and what it offers/mainly supply. I think it'd be a good idea to add in; for those who really knows what's it about.
--
Koosha136 (
talk)
13:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Fansite. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
It's just a paragraph about their decline which already appears in the lead section of the article Sanack2008 ( talk) 15:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Fansite article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 16 September 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Kareeser 21:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Should there be some information on Fanlistings?
Maybe. Fanlistings, as stated by TFL, do not have to contain extra content besides the general rules, members, join form, etc. Thus, fanlistings are not exactly fansites in the usual definition. I might add something to it though.-- Haley 21:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
One of the...No THE one thing that bugs me the most is probably the "typical navigation" section, which I find entirely pointless.
Perhaps that merging the few paragraphs about typical content could also be good, along with some rewording/clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puceron ( talk • contribs) 01:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
For me, fansites define my early experience with the WWW, especially those with really poorly designed layouts, usually made by teenagers (like myself, back in the day). It's a shame I don't frequent them any more. I'm sure contemporary fansites are still all over the internet, as well as remnants of abandoned websites (with those lovely and awful late-90s/early-00s web designs) and GeoCities (R.I.P.) mirrors. And let's not forget fanlistings! I'm sure I'm not the only person who remembers fanlistings as being nothing more than vanity websites for two groups: 1) for amateur web designers who've just discovered CSS and Adobe Photoshop to flex their new-found web 1.5 skills, and 2) for people to add their contrived web handle to frivolous website listings in order to feel like they are a part of this new cultural phenomenon. I miss those days. - 220.245.253.81 ( talk) 13:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, but the talk pages usually are associated with trying to improve the article. 67.160.117.123 ( talk) 22:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Regarding Fan Site Kits, since it goes hand in hand with the Fan Site topic, should we add that too? I can't find any good information that defines Fan Site Kits and what it offers/mainly supply. I think it'd be a good idea to add in; for those who really knows what's it about.
--
Koosha136 (
talk)
13:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Fansite. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
It's just a paragraph about their decline which already appears in the lead section of the article Sanack2008 ( talk) 15:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)