Talk:SlashFic Hall of Shame

Do you think we need 'wank' in the glossary and a subcategory of fan activities for that? If we had one, I'd assign it to this site, since it's where a lot of the LULZ started. --rache 17:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Man, we totally need wank in the glossary! Wow, can't believe I didn't put that in brackets.Sherrold 17:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

At one point the page says "Each update[1] included a rant .... and then a link to the story being shamed," but then it says "Links were never given to the story." Were links included or not included? Or is the page talking about two different things on the Hall of Shame site? -- Liviapenn 02:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Modified that first sentence so that it says "and then a link to an excerpt from the story being shamed." Hopefully that clarifies it a bit. --rache 02:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

A little bit-- were the excerpts hosted on the Hall of Shame site, or elsewhere? The confusing part, I think, is that "link" makes it sound like they were linking to something offsite. -- Liviapenn 02:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Nah, the page had a frontpage which held the rant, and a second page that held the week's story of shame. If you click on the wayback machine ref, it'll step you through the whole thing--basically a set up, a drum roll, click the link, and voila! there's the selected story. If you can think of a less confusing way to put that, go for it. --rache 03:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment Reorganisation

During the Featured Article nomination process for this page, Greedy dancer raised the point that the Reactions section is a tad unwieldy as it stands, and suggested subdividing by topic. I think this is a good suggestion, but would also like to preserve some kind of chronology of the comments as the ones that were left during the site's heyday are a bit different in character to the ones after it became less active.

Here's my proposal: group together the 1997 and 1998 sections (while the site was active) into a single 1997-1998 section, and the same with 1999-2000, and then subdivide the comments by topic within those. The 2012 comment could potentially go into a "post-2000" section, or "2010s"? It would be nice to see if there are other post-2000 comments to be found. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

That sounds good! --Greedy dancer (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)