Talk:FetLife

Removed Info

I removed the thing about not having models or professional photographs on the front page because it may not be technically accurate; surely some users work as models or photographers? Should probably be linked with the pages for other social networking sites and perhaps other kink sites. IsaacSapphire (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Page rewrite 19 October 2009

I have done a rewrite on this article to make it more encyclopedic. I have removed the advertising banner, feel free to put it back if I didn't do a good enough job. I've also added a controversy I found online to balance out the article. I removed the External Links section altogether. Finally, I removed the stub notice. Uke2 (talk) 02:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to see the business model explanation gone.

FetLife announced in a Tweet 4-17-11 that they had 800,000 members. I suspect this means they've signed up 800,000 and is not a net figure which includes departures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.109.15 (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Donation options 2013

I added a sentence indicating the move to accept bitcoin in response to a post on /r/bitcoin where the developers announced it with along with a screen shot. The entire section on payment options is lacking sources, but the most obvious evidence is on the site itself, behind a membership wall. Disinter (talk) 07:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the entire section regarding payment processing options because I can not find WP:RS, since the sources given are wholly WP:SPS. Even if the self-published source for this information is accurate, please allow time for others to publish corroborating information before re-adding these bits. --Meitar (talk) 04:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't WP:ABOUTSELF apply here? – RobinHood70 ^talk 07:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Per the site's owner, on the site itself, posted yesterday: "Just in the last week alone we've started to accept support through credit card again and also started to accept alternative payments like US Bank Transfers (ACH), Interac e-Transfers, and Bitcoins." – RobinHood70 ^talk 07:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

No, not as I understand it, as per items 2 "it does not involve claims about third parties" (which a payment processor most certainly is) and 5, "the article is not based primarily on such sources." Give it time, nothing bad will happen if we give it time. --Meitar (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see either of those applying in this situation. Item 2 wouldn't apply, since the statement you removed made no direct claims about payment processors, just that FetLife stopped taking credit cards. Similarly, item 5 wouldn't apply, since there are currently 13 references, only two of which are sourced to something directly related to FetLife. – RobinHood70 ^talk 05:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you're being unhelpfully pedantic on item 2, but okay. I was under the impression it was the statement, not the entire article, that item 5 was discussing. Am I wrong? --Meitar (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

(←) Not at all. Item 2 is meant to cover the case of blatantly mischaracterizing someone or something without any evidence. The statement as written doesn't do that at all. – RobinHood70 ^talk 17:12, 9 May 2013‎ (UTC)

FetLife as a "dating site"

I've reverted this edit, which removes statements that whether or not FetLife is a "dating site" is disputed. The reason given is that the cited references don't support the claim by using the language "not technically a dating site," but I'm sure we can all agree that if you have to clarify that "Thing X isn't TECHNICALLY a Y, but…," what you're saying is "Thing X is a Y." Also, for the record, FetLife's own home page describes itself as a "dating site" (in exactly those words, no caveats, ifs, ands, or buts about it) no less than four times in its HTML code. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meitar (talk • contribs) 17:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

That's what's called WP:Original research. You're taking a statement and reading into it when it says the exact opposite. Saying it's technically not a dating site can be read to imply that it's similar to one, but to me, it says quite clearly that it's not. If it says something about it in the HTML code, you'll have to provide a reference for that. – RobinHood70 ^talk 17:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. Can you explain why you removed the references that supported your inference, though? I've restored them for you, because I think you're right—both of those call FetLife an "online community", although they also quite clearly say that FetLife is used for the purpose of dating. You're welcome. :) With regard to the site's own HTML page, the "reference" is FetLife's own home page, available to the public, where it describes itself. If a citation is not needed for Talk:FetLife#Donation_options_2013 then I don't see any reason other than a biased POV you hold to demand one for this. --Meitar (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The first reference says that FetLife is a "social network", and mentions "online community" only in passing. The second makes no direct mention of what FetLife prefers to present itself as at all. The first might be an acceptable reference if we change the wording to "social network" in the lead, but honestly, given your history with FetLife, your placement of multiple references that cast FetLife in a bad light is suspicious at best. As to my own POV, it's closer to yours than you appear to think, however, Wikipedia is not the place for POV editing. It's a place for neutral editing.

As far as citations go, the message I quoted from would have been a sufficient source for the Donation options, which was why I mentioned it in the previous topic, since it satisfies all the demands of WP:ABOUTSELF. At this point, however, I think it's a moot point, since they seem to have worked out their troubles, and can take at least some common forms of payment once again. When there was an unusual situation, it was a notable topic, but at this point, adding a section on payment methods accepted would probably just come across as advertising. – RobinHood70 ^talk 18:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Both of those references you keep removing are highly relevant to multiple parts of the article. I've restored them, again, at another relevant point. Please stop removing relevant references. I agree with you with regards to the "Donation" options no longer being notable. --Meitar (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

If they have relevance to other parts of the article, then there's no issue with you inserting them there, but that's not what we were discussing. Also, I'm going to ask for a third party to go over this article, as I feel that many of the references (not just yours) would be considered inappropriate by Wikipedia standards, since they're not what would be considered reliable sources, nor should they be exceptions under any other Wikipedia guidelines, but I'm not up to speed on all those rules. – RobinHood70 ^talk 21:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Blue77 Willf77 (talk) 07:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Features Section: Bloat?

The Features section seems kind of crowded, to me. Most of it seems to be describing, in fairly granular detail, technical elements common to most social networking sites. Could this be removed or consolidated? PvOberstein (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I have attempted to summarise this section, though it's still very short on sources. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)