Talk:Wattpad

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 January 2019 and 17 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Axanthou.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Arielpaige17. Peer reviewers: Cquinn1112, KMYCP.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Uhmss.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
"making Wattpad the only ebook reader to support all major mobile phone platforms" that statement seems unlikely, is it on BREW? simple J2ME? Is it on most carrier decks? Is it on WAP?

A more accurate statement would be on all smart phone platforms, and I doubt wattpad is first although I guess it's possible. For awhile there were much fewer smart phone platforms. Perhaps the first to be on all of these smart phone platforms, and then list the platforms? Mathiastck (talk) 03:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

noted authors?
By whom? This seems like flagrant self-promotion and then it ends with "Please don't add yourself..." So who decides who goes there? I think the section should be removed entirely since wattpad has no noted authors and a lot of garbage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.68.156 (talk) 08:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Citing an outside source to introduce an example of a current or notable writer will make a random example look less like self-promotion or fan-driven promotion. Dennis G. Jerz (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Wattpad Withdrawl Syndrome (WWS)
Wattpad has became extremely popular with writers and readers, but whenever the server has crashed, the users become devastated and tend to go crazy. Such days happened on April 21, 2011 and April 22, 2011. The users tend to gather on the Wattpad Facebook page and post up comments all day in agony. Wattpad tends to always apologize although it is not their fault. By the time Wattpad is back up, users will have a long list of books to read and people they want to fan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.163.106 (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View
Until I restored links to critical stories in the NYT and the Register, the vast majority of sources on this page were to PR sites, including the founder's blog, press releases from an investor, and press releases from Wattpad itself. The Publisher's Weekly article about Geragotelis is a perfectly legitimate story that highlights how one user found Wattpad beneficial, and if there are more links to stories like that, the article will be a more valuable part of Wikipedia. I've flagged some unsupported claims. Dennis G. Jerz (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Intro -- biased sources vs no sources
I don't mean to get into an editing war, but the opening paragraph I just restored, that cites 2 PR sources, is a better opening paragraph than the second paragraph, which cites no sources (and which, unless a citatiin appears, shoukd probably be deleted soon). I think the article is better with the section that quotes the founders than without, but feel free to write a better intro, perhaps drawing from the news sources cited later in the article. If you look at the editing history of this entry, you'll see that I have undone the blatant PR work done by somebody who seems to be a Wattpad employee, and I restore negative details that had been removed by that user. At least the entry I restored accurately states that the creators of Wattpad are the ones who define their company that way; it,s more transparent than simply presenting that claim as if it is neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis G. Jerz (talk • contribs) 18:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Certified spam
There is no info at all on Wattpad how this business works. Who pays how for the service, is it based on donations, ads, selling copyrights for contributed content, or what? –178.24.247.128 (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Jaz Peer Review
Hi Alex! Here are my notes, overall this is a super well thought out page and I just have a couple thoughts. I'm not sure what section you were working on so these may not directly apply to you but here they are!

One thought, could more connections be drawn about fan fiction on this page? It’s definitely not needed but could be a nice addition.

I think this sentence is incomplete:  In most cases, the work on Wattpad is only a sample to insure funds going to them in regards to their writing. In this sentence it is hard to follow who they and them is referring to (author or reader): "In most cases, the work on Wattpad is only a sample to insure funds going to them in regards to their writing." Im not sure if "fast-follow" is a widely used term, I’m not sure what that means and it may need further clarification.

I love the section on usage and how did you get your content block below the description haha? Mine keeps going straight to the top!

Are citations needed for the different releases of the version, or is that general knowledge from the App Store kind of info? JazminWel (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Too much primary sources, we have an advertisement
The lead section is very problematic because it has way too much primary sources from the company's own website. This leads to an advertisement-like introduction. It is better to remove claims supported by primary sources in the lead article than to keep a longer, over-the-top lead. The lead is also supposed to give summarize the entire article, not just viewership numbers of the company. There is sufficient content in the article to rewrite the lead more neutrally, while also still establishing Wattpad's notability without a sales pitch. Sociable Song (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree. There are also other parts of the paper that rely too much on primary sources. Do you have any suggestions on how to make the lead rely less on primary sources? Uhmss (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Predominance of original fiction or fanfic?
Did Wattpad start out as primarily a fanfic site? I've seen it listed in some sources along with AO3 and Fanfiction.net as a fanfic site. Do we have any information about the proportion of fanfic to original fiction on the site over time? --Jim Henry (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * With the creation of fanfiction-specific websites such as fanfiction.net in 1998, Wattpad in 2006, and Archive of Our Own (or AO3) in 2009, fan writers had, for the first time, spaces solely meant for them (Riley 2015). -- "“And then they boned”: an analysis of fanfiction and its influence on sexual development", Lindsay Mixer (master's thesis at Humbolt State University, https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1170&context=etd)

Confusing text in tooltip
In the infobox, tooltip [a] says "Although this site wholly requires an account registration to gain access to this website, it can still be accessed via clicking the links to their user-created stories or to their account profiles."

I have no idea what it's trying to say, can someone improve the wording please? 87.119.178.250 (talk) 08:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

how about the large amount of bad stories on here?
nobody says anything about that even though most of the wattpad stories are really bad 76.81.148.72 (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Subheadings under History and Founder
I do not think this section is worded properly. The contents of the subheadings do not reflect the header, and the 'Founder' aspect of the header only refers to one aspect, I do not think it is necessary. I suggest that 'History and Founder' should be renamed to 'History' and the subheadings be renamed to fit in, such as 'In the Philippines' to 'Expansion to the Philliphines'. Uhmss (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Handful of pop fiction books.jpg

Wiki Education assignment: Digital Writing
— Assignment last updated by OsseusIgni (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Bold 115.164.176.246 (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)