Talk:FanSided

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi editors, M here with another request. I was hoping to add a little more context about Time Inc.'s acquisition of FanSided, so that it would read something like this:

I think this adds some important context about the deal and some additional details not currently present. @Ptrnext:, would you be interested in reviewing this one as well? I'd really appreciate it! As always, I won't make any edits myself due to my COI. Please let me know what you think! M at MinuteMedia (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

This looks fine. I'll condense a bit (personalized feels extraneous or POV to me) and post. --FeldBum (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@FeldBum:, your changes make sense. Thanks for the help! M at MinuteMedia (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi editors, M here again with another request. I was hoping to add a little more about the acquisition of FanSided by Minute Media. Immediately after the sentence "In January of 2020, FanSided was sold to Minute Media from Meredith Corporation." could we add "When it acquired FanSided, Minute Media was able to target fans and audiences based on specific sports teams.^[1]"? Please let me know what you think! @FeldBum:, would you be interested in reviewing this request as well? I'd really appreciate it! M at MinuteMedia (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Checking that out now. I usually like "with the intent of" type sentences, but let's see what works best here. -- FeldBum (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I think I got it. Closing this too. -- FeldBum (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

You did! Thank you so much for making that update, I really appreciate it! M at MinuteMedia (talk) 22:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @FeldBum:, I saw that you had requested some updated comScore numbers. I was actually planning to request that update and thought it could look something like this: As of December 2019^[update], comScore reported that FanSided received 23.5 million viewers per month.^[1]

Please let me know what you think! As always I won't make any edits myself because of my COI. M at MinuteMedia (talk) 22:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

That looks good. I'll add. -- FeldBum (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good FeldBum. Let me know if you need anything else from me for this! M at MinuteMedia (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Changed the language a bit, but all done. -- FeldBum (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Those changes look good to me! Thanks for your help! M at MinuteMedia (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi editors, M here with another request. I'd like to propose a small change to the FanSided 250 subsection to make it more accurate and up to date. In 2021, the name was changed to "FanSided Fandoms of the Year." Could we change the subheading to that, and change the last sentence to something like the following?

• In 2021, the ranking was renamed as FanSided Fandoms of the Year.^[1]

Please let me know what you think! As always I won't make any changes myself due to my conflict of interest. @FeldBum:, I really appreciate how you've looked at my requests so far, would you have any interest in looking at this one? M at MinuteMedia (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Any chance you have a better citation for the name change? That one really doesn't cut it. -- FeldBum (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@FeldBum:, I did another search and couldn't find an independent source that specified when the name was changed. Most sources just ran with the new name without noting that it had changed from Fansided 250. Would you accept a primary source that at least identifies the name has changed so the section header can be corrected? That seems to me like it would qualify as a "straightforward, descriptive statement of fact" like the primary source guideline asks for. What do you think? M at MinuteMedia (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that should work. I'll change. FeldBum (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for being willing to use that source, FeldBum! Could you change the heading and the name in the body paragraph to reflect the source? The ranking is now known as the FanSided Fandom of the Year. Just want to make sure that it's as accurate as possible. I really appreciate the time you're spending on this! M at MinuteMedia (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yep, done. -- FeldBum (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, FeldBum! It looks like there is still one spot near the end of the paragraph where it says "In 2021, FanSided renamed the project the FanSided 250." Could we change that to read "In 2021, FanSided renamed the project to Fandom of the Year." just so that everything matches up? I'd really appreciate it! M at MinuteMedia (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Yep, doing that now -- FeldBum (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! M at MinuteMedia (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi editors, M here again with another request. I was looking at the FanSiders of the Year section and I noticed that it is sourced back to a tweet and FanSided itself. I did some digging and didn't turn up any secondary sources about the award, so I suggest removing that section entirely as it doesn't meet sourcing guidelines. @FeldBum:, I know that you did some tweaking to that section about a month ago so I'll defer to you here, just curious if you think the section is necessary given the lack of strong sourcing. Please let me know. M at MinuteMedia (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

While I look into this, @M at MinuteMedia, a question. Is "Fansiders of the Year" inaccurate or wrong in any way? If the cites are bad but the content is correct, I'm inclined to leave and look for new sources. If it's wrong and irrelevant and unsourced or poorly sourced, I'll remove it. -- FeldBum (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@FeldBum:, that section name and content is correct, I was simply looking at the sourcing. I know Wikipedia doesn't like social media as a source and so wanted to bring it up to try to improve the article sourcing. However, if you feel it is okay for now, I am happy to ask about a couple of other things. M at MinuteMedia (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, SPS isn't great, but I'm OK with it for something innocuous like the name of a program. I don't think it needs to be removed. -- FeldBum (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@FeldBum: understood, thanks for taking a look! M at MinuteMedia (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi editors, I wanted to take a look at the Controversies section in the article and ask if it's necessary. While there were a couple of news stories about that event, I don't think that it's necessarily encyclopedic content. News stories are written every day about Twitter arguments but few of them are included on Wikipedia.

However, if editors do feel the content should remain, I'd suggest eliminating the Controversies section and moving the content to the History section. Based on my reading of NPOV and MOS guidelines, that seems to be more appropriate. The Criticism essay also supports this, noting that "Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged" and that "best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section."

I reworked the text a bit as well, cutting some extraneous information, addressing what I saw as some tone/NPOV issues and fixing up the citations so they follow the correct format.

Please let me know what you think! M at MinuteMedia (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Let me think on this one. I definitely think that a Controversy section with a single subsection is unfair to you, but having a Controversy or Criticism section is pretty much par for the course. I think nesting it under History with a subsection named Burt Gertson / Mia Khalifa controversy might be the best option. What do you think of that solution @M at MinuteMedia? -- FeldBum (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@FeldBum:, thanks for the response! I understand what you are saying and if you think Controversy sections are par for the course, I will defer to your judgment on the placement of headers. What are your thoughts on my proposed wording changes? I think it makes the text more neutral and protects the identity of our former employee, as including his name could negatively affect his future endeavors. M at MinuteMedia (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I think your language is definitely a bit tighter, which is good, but it removes everything regarding Cavan, who is clearly mentioned in the Mashable and The Spun citations. I can try a version that combines both Cavan and your language. -- FeldBum (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@M at MinuteMedia How about: On September 29, 2016, FanSided columnist Burt Gertson and former adult film actress Mia Khalifa, who was writing for FanSided at the time, engaged in a Twitter argument. After initially claiming via email that Gertson was a real person, FanSided later tweeted that the Gertson account was a fictional person aimed at providing satire. On October 1, 2016, FanSided issued a statement on the termination of those involved, including editor-in-chief Jim Cavan. --FeldBum (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@FeldBum: I think your modification looks good. Let's go ahead with that! M at MinuteMedia (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Cool, all done then. I'll mark as finished. --FeldBum (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! M at MinuteMedia (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi editors, M here again with another small request. I propose removing the About section and integrating that content with the lead. I think doing so will help improve the readability of the article. Please let me know what you think! As always I won't make any changes myself due to my COI. @FeldBum: could I interest you in reviewing this request? I'd really appreciate it! M at MinuteMedia (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. It's pretty duplicative. I can take a shot at it. --FeldBum (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Integrated the info in that section with the lede and removed the second sentence regarding growth that was not very specific or descriptive. Spencer^T•C 04:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I did a full rewrite of this article, culling out trivia and fluff, and pulled down the COI flag. I am not associated with FanSided in any way. Carrite (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)