Talk:B3ta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Internet culture (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Websites / Computing   
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
 

Pronunciation[edit]

The pronunciation needs moved up to the top. Definately. And I don't know how to do that. MG

Sourcing[edit]

Towards the bottom, the unsourced statement "b3ta undeniably reduces office productivity," I would recommend linking to the "board stats" page to back up the claim (http://www.b3ta.com/board_stats/mainboard-users.html or simply http://www.b3ta.com/board_stats). Couldn't hurt. - Agent Muu (talk) 05:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

In need of a tidy[edit]

While being an extensive and interesting article on a site of which I know little, there is quite a bit of repeatition, and it's seems chaotic and 'heavy weight'. Also although it made me smile, there appears to be some B3ta in-humour and the tone sometimes appears to be that of a group member, as opposed to the impartial explaination that should fit an encyclopedia. I'll leave it to those with a better knowledge of the subject to improve the article.--Myfanwy 04:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article is quite obviously written by a b3ta regular, and its use of in-jokes and the like makes it :impossible to completely understand by someone like me (i.e. a non-B3tan). Needs to be cleaned up and NPOV-erised. Flag of Australia.svg :plattopustalk 15:46, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
I have tried my best to make this page NPOV, can you please take another look and tell us how much more work needs doing --Pluke 19:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
So what if the article contains in-jokes unique to b3ta. Newbies can visit and learn from here. If you erased the in-jokes, you erase half of the jokes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.12.60 (talk) 10:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Capitalisation[edit]

The correct capitalisation is b3ta rather than B3ta - I've corrected all the occurences in the body text. —151.123.192.11 15:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong. Check in any newsletter. Despite the logo, Rob nearly always uses "B3ta" rather than "b3ta". [1]Wereon 10:00, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

History[edit]

This page could do with some history of b3ta. When was it founded? And why?on here it says something about Emap providing some cash.

Madeline McCann "Top Trump" reference[edit]

Did this actually cause any real life controversy outside of b3ta itself - tabloid headlines along the lines of "BAN THIS SICK MADDY WEB FILTH" and the like?

If so, where? All I can see is a link to a b3ta message board thread where a few people say they don't like it. In the context of a bad taste humour website, which regularly features sick jokes about child murders and paedophilia, it's not actually that offensive. 217.155.20.163 20:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This whole article reads like a self-promotional "we are so great aren't we" piece of crap and is bad need of removing POV, weasel words and peacock phrases, and needs a lot more secondary sources to support its grandiose claims. DarkSaber2k 11:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Tidied your misused apostrophes and tidied your inverted comma usage.

Over-zealous pruning of the article[edit]

Can we please have an open discussion regarding what content should be edited and/or removed, instead of letting an admin decree what can and can't be in there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greebowarrior (talkcontribs) 15:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully. I agree with comments by Liverpool Scouse and 5telios - there should be a compromise that involves keeping the reliably sourced content and pruning some of the other material. Addhoc 16:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree fully, and also this over-zealous mod has deleted the Rob Manuel page and stuck it on a protected redirect, with absolutely no consensus or debate. The mod claims that the page was "heavy vandalism target" with no evidence to support his assertion. I suggest that a mod replaces the page with a version from archive.org and if there's a debate to had about whether it should exist - then we should have it, after the page is reinstated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.67.246 (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Note[edit]

I have taken the initiative to remove all the POV violating, unsourced garbage and in-jokes from the article, which was most of the article. We are running an encyclopedia, not a fan site for your little project. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Acknowledged, but is full protection necessary? In stripping the 'cruft' from the article it could be argued that you've also removed a lot of its points of interest for readers, and now you've prevented anyone from adding anything back. It all seems a little excessive. -- CountdownCrispy talk contributions 10:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, not a forum to publish a needlessly detailed blow-by-blow guide to a website of questionable notability whose membership have specifically targeted Wikipedia for hard-to-find vandalism. As the website has specifically targeted this Project for vandalism, and as the article's prior contributors have clearly not had the best interests of the Project in mind (in terms of crafting a neutral, factual, verifiable encyclopedia article), I doubt unprotection would be beneficial, either to the subject of the article, nor to the Project. There is nothing salvageable in the content removed, and I am beginning to wonder whether or not the subject should have an article in the first place. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
You have removed an awful lot of content without any prior discussion and then protected the article to prevent editing or adding anything back - in a way this smacks of an abuse of admin privileges based largely upon personal opinion (the removal of content without discussion and consensus first would be considered vandalism perhaps, were you not an admin). As just one notable example, a newsletter that is sent to 100,000 people every week is very notable yet you have removed the section entirely. Whilst I agree that some of the article could have been trimmed and sourced better, I agree with the above editor in that the amount you removed is indeed excessive and I ask that you remove the block or at least downgrade to a semi-protect againt IP vandals. Liverpool Scouse 16:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree --5telios 09:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe you are acting in an unprofessional and retaliatory fashion. As a neutral user to this matter, I would like to add this: Wikipedia is not b3ta's soap box, but it is equally neither yours. Protecting the page and removing nearly all of the content from it is an abuse of power. The semi-protection on the page is also un-necessary, as it is not a vandalised page. You have done this to concrete your edit to avoid public criticism. The current revision of the page does not make any sense, with sentences cut off mid-way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.67.246 (talk) 11:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I've reduced the protection to semi protect. Addhoc 12:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I've attempted to alert Wereon of these rather alarming edits, as he / she appears to have been a keen editor of this page in the recent past. If another Wikipedian knows of a better way to proceed then please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.67.246 (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Mr Gustafson, Stephen Colbert has also, very publicly, issued satirical threats of Wikipedia vandalism. Are you now going to go and delete the article on him and the show on which he threatened the vandalism? B3ta is a humor website which should be taken with a grain of salt. To do otherwise is disingenuous and a total calumny. B3ta does have a value as an article as it is a source of many popular internet memes and virals. I am sure even you have received something a B3tan has made in a humorous email from a friend or associate, although you are probably not aware of it. Coder Keitaro 19:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

can i add the edit and removal of content has upset people, look http://b3ta.com/board/7731162 rob, one of the owners thinks it sucks, if members of b3ta (which i am also) have pissed about with wikipedia why dont you contact b3ta about this have a moan it may help. but being a twunt and blocking everything b3ta related to be re-edited is stupid, one of the reasons a few members of b3ta (and myself) will now no longer donate to wikipedia, admin guy learn hot to moderate/administrate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.189.105 (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mr. Gustafson: Please do not gratuitously remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Can I invite Mr Gustafson to a book burning later on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.83.50 (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the verifiability policy, "any edit lacking a source may be removed". Also comparing article editing with Nazi persecution is in poor taste. Addhoc 16:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia Book Burning has been around long before the Nazis used it, so there is nothing offensive about it.

True enough, however in all honesty, I consider there is a significant difference between overzealous article editing and book burning. Addhoc 16:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

4chan?[edit]

So it seems to me that b3ta is just a British rip-off of 4chan, innit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kakashi-sensei (talkcontribs) 09:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

How can b3ta be a rip-off of 4chan when it started 3 years before 4chan. Kakashi = Fail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Policesquadincolor (talkcontribs) 22:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

So it seems that B3ta is a just British ripoff of Futaba? ;-) Anyways, out of curiosity, is there any "cross-pollination" of images between the two sites? 24.80.238.196 (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
During the past year, 4chan memes have somewhat infiltrated b3ta board, to many board members' disgust, but this mostly occurs on the board during the US waking hours ("gay shift") rather than the UK waking hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.59.3 (talk) 09:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

B3ta is like /b/ but better. Or /b/ is like b3ta but worse. 79.67.65.114 (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Banner

Can an admin please remove the banner asking for references from reliable sources for this article please?

I think The Guardian, The BBC, and Vnunet should be enough for anyone.

Cheers

Legless —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.21.237 (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Still lacking sources[edit]

This article has been flagged as "relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject" for over five years now. Surely b3ta has gotten enough press/blog/interview coverage since then that we can use a third-party source to pick out the "prominent" memes, rather than relying on passing editors adding their own favourites over the years? --McGeddon (talk) 11:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)