Jump to content

Talk:AfterEllen/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

possible sources

The Asian American Press noted that "With half a million readers each month, AfterEllen.com is the top web site for queer women." [1] Nick mallory 02:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are some more sites that might be of use. Benjiboi 06:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC) http://www.technodyke.com/monthly/site/081103_afterellen.asp http://www.echelonmagazine.com/news_logo3.htm http://www.aapress.com/artsnews.php?subaction=showfull&id=1172250219&archive=&start_from=&ucat=6& http://www.erosionmedia.com/news/6-8-2006.html http://newsblaze.com/story/20070115113130tsop.nb/topstory.html http://www.library.ucla.edu/college/classes/ftv98t/index.htm

"Top" website

Hello. I believe the wording judging AfterEllen.com as the "top" website for queer women includes a NPOV judgement, even though a page linked to as a reference refers to it as so. Top implies more than just most widely-read, if that's what this website is. I will defer to the judgement to those more familiar with the website to reword this to improve the page. Thanks. ~TheXRayStyle (talk) 12:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

AfterElton

Does anyone else think AfterElton should get its own page, or at least significantly more information on this one? Twin Bird (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've split the content, which should help promote development of content specific to AfterElton. Once enough content has been added to establish AfterElton's notability, the article can be split into two separate articles once again. —Zach425 talk/contribs 11:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. They need to split off from each other. Its interesting how there's a LOT of information for the Ellen site but the Elton is more or less a footnote. Hmmm --RThompson82 (talk) 09:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
This cut that was done by an editor on October 2 of this year has made the AfterElton.com material more balanced in relation to the AfterEllen.com material. Flyer22 (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Title

Taken from JamesBWatson's talk page:

I see that you recently moved AfterEllen.com to AfterEllen.com and AfterElton.com. But would you mind if I moved it to AfterEllen and AfterElton.com? Would that seem like a good move to you or not? The reason I feel that it would be a good move is that it flows better under that title, sort of like two relatives with the same last name. Instead of saying Richard Spears and Kristina Spears, you would (or are at least supposed to say), Richard and Kristina Spears. Flyer22 (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree that your suggested title flows better. However, I'm not sure that it wouldn't be less clear that it refers to two separate web addresses: it would be easy to read it as one URL [AfterEllen and AfterElton.com] rather than as [AfterEllen.com] and [AfterElton.com]. I would be inclined to leave it where it is, but if you are still inclined to move it perhaps it would be a good idea to [discuss it here] first. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay. I will [discuss it here] first. [This] is not an active talk page, but I can be patient about this and let it stay [h]ere for months. I can also suggest it at some related project, in order to get more thoughts about it sooner. Flyer22 (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I am starting to think that your title is better out of the two, due to what you stated about it possibly being perceived as one site under my title. I would suggest a comma be placed in mine, but we don't usually have commas in Wikipedia article titles and that would seem awkward. Flyer22 (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
This is a good suggestion, but I agree with JamesBWatson that it could potentially cause too much confusion to make the change beneficial. Hopefully the content about AfterElton.com can be improved upon enough over the coming months to warrant two articles once again, thereby avoiding the issue completely. —Zach425 talk/contribs 04:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for weighing in, Zach. Flyer22 (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Name Affiliation and user rights

Did the site founder have to get permission from either Ellen Degeneres or Elton John to use their names as a reference-only? I ask because other public figures have sued and won cease-and-desist measures against non-related entities using their likeness or referencing their name/image for their own purposes (a la Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, Johnny Carson's and Bob Hope's estate, etc.) I would imagine that Ellen and Elton don't mind their names being referenced for these websites, but I'm just curious if their permission was required. --71.189.241.167 (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Lists and outdated information

I'm adding a tag for the article being outdated, since a lot of the columns and shows that are listed here no longer run on AfterEllen (and in some cases, aren't even listed in the site directory) while some of the more recent ones have not been added. I haven't been a regular on the site for some time, so perhaps someone else can help to update this. I'm also a little concerned by the fact that half the article is basically a list of the different sections of the website. I'm not sure which tag this would fall under, but it doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me. At the very least, if this information is included about AfterEllen it should also be included of AfterElton, and there should be a description about what each of the different columns cover (not all of them are explained by the titles). Beggarsbanquet (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Relocating outdated information

I'm moving this from the article and placing it here because it's so outdated. It should be vetted and the correct information can be added back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buck Winston (talk • contribs) 23:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Bloggers

VLOG hosts

Overdue update about transphobia?

The page linked below clearly demonstrates that afterellen-dot-com became a TERF lair:

http://www.afterellen.com/general-news/559907-queer-identified-women-jump-lesbian-outside-of-a-drag-show

signed: 179.55.163.156 (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 21 October 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to AfterEllen. (non-admin closure) Colin M (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

– The website's official name is "AfterEllen". When it was launched in 2002, it was called "AfterEllen.com", but the ".com" was dropped from the name several years ago. Even after acquisition by a new owner in 2019, the site continues to identify, and be referred to, as "AfterEllen". Pyxis Solitary (yak) 14:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support. As noted by McPhail in the edit history, the issue was the WP:Copy and paste move. As for the name, when this article is moved to "AfterEllen," "AfterEllen.com" shouldn't be called "formerly." It's not "formerly," as seen by its Facebook and Twitter pages, and by this. They are still known as AfterEllen.com. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
"...Yesterday AfterEllen denounced pedophilia...." – (Memoree Joelle, owner of AE). "AfterEllen is not an LGBTQ site." – (AfterEllen.com Twitter, created 2007). No one has suggested that the ".com" has been erased from history because that is how the site was registered when it was created and how many people remember and still think of it. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 10:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Pyxis Solitary, yeah, I know you weren't saying that ".com" has been erased from its history. I was simply speaking of the "formerly" wording that was used. I don't think we should state "formerly" when they are still known by the ".com" and they haven't made an announcement about a name change; they haven't stated that the ".com" is now a formerly matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:AfterEllen/Archive_1&oldid=1163151796"