Talk:Newgrounds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive
Archives

Untitled[edit]

ClockCrew[edit]

I know that some few , biased people have been rather cranky, and won't ever listen or even look at any of the almost 100 submitted ClockCrew pages, but maybe at least a section about Flash Groups and their importance?72.204.83.132 22:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Let me rephrase all of this in a way less... immature. The deletion of the Clock Crew article has mainly been based on "Sources" and "Notability". However at this moment the ClockCrews Notability should not be a problem, as they have won at least 50 awards from Newgrounds which is again, a WELL KNOWN site. The content has been featured on the front page many a time, and on ClockDay (August 15th) Tom Fulp changes things around the CC entirely. In fact he went as far as giving out free Xbox 360's to the creators of the best ClockDay movie (which of course has to do with the ClockCrew). As far as sources are concerned dates are all found via the "Date Submitted" spot on every CC movies page. There is no real debate to of how much of a big influence the CC has been on NG. Most of the information can be confirmed by hundreds of active members in the CC and NG communities. I wish for people to think it over, and at least add a small section about the CC.AngryStudent 23:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that all of the evidence you provide is entirely self-referential. "Newgrounds says we're significant" is not, in itself, a reason to create an article. There are no reputable news sources commenting on Clock Crew's actions or really reporting about them at all. For comparison, Something Awful is notable. Random frontpage authors like "Livestock" are not notable, even though they have been "featured on the front page many a time". You need to be noticed by a third party, or else all you're doing here is spam. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

::Please explain how Newgrounds isn't a reputable source? AngryStudent00:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Better yet you ask for "Sources" where we have been featured on I wish for you to tell me why the top results on these Google Searches would not be reputable. Search 1 Search 2 Search 3 Search 4 How exactly are these results not reputable? AngryStudent 00:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If I search Google for my own name, I am the first few hits, and there are quite a lot. However, I am not remotely worthy of an article in Wikipedia. I don't think you're understanding my point about reliable source information - someone OTHER than Newgrounds or the Clock Crew (or people affiliated with either) needs to say that your group is notable. Internet phenomena get tons of hits on Google, but most are not notable. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
If you look at the results they are of content that those specific websites themselves have added, and are not just are own name. The only reason I linked 4 google searches is because on each of the searches the very first results are not added, maintained, by the Clock Crew, and I don't see how Addicting Games isn't a credible source. It is are content that someone else appears to like us, they are not affiliated with us in any way. The Clock Crew in a sense created a new standard for Flash Collaborations movies as well. AngryStudent 08:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

May I step politely in, here? I am sure that the Clock Crew's time WILL come and the arguments you have presented here will, indeed, be part of that. However, at present, although I, the foremost member of another (tiny) crew on NG would acknowledge that you are obviously the senior crew on Newgrounds and you were the first of your type I don't think the CC has done anything wholely different from other groups, such as LL. If we start putting you on, where would we end? Numa Numa, for comparison, reached out beyond not only NG, but the internet, by getting on TV news. Technically, Strawberry Clock did get a moments mention, I know, but it wasn't the same. I am pleased that this dialogue is going politely, without childish behaviour, sadly that isn't always the case on Wiki contact me here or on NG if you want. IceDragon64 of the Dragons & Spirits IceDragon64 22:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Can't the Clock Crew get a section of the Newgrounds article then? If Newgrounds is worth reading an article about, then an influential group involved in the history of Newgrounds, with its OWN day in the NG calender, should get a section. 11:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

As I have acknowledged, CC is the foremost group, though it is no longer the only group to have its own day. There have been other Days on NG for years, but I don't think the outside world would be very interested in them. You will see that we are currently accepting the smallest reference to CC as an example of a Day and a group, with their site link included. This is what I meant when I predicted that CC's day will come- their work to establish themselves and be accepted and respected is slowly paying off. I can only dream the same for our group(the DS), so I do understand why you hope for more recognition. IceDragon64 (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll just stick in an unnecessary little note here, I'm not really debating whether it should have it's own page or not (I don't care about the clock crew.) but CC's fame exists outside of Newgrounds and Clockcrew.cc as well.

Taken from 1 seconds worth of yahoo searching: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=clock+crew That's not newgrounds, nope. No siree. Not clockcrew.cc either. - I don't really care about adding crap like this to the discussion page. If someone would fix it, then please do so. I'm only leaving a quick opinion. I hardly use this site anyhow.

Irrelevant. Urban Dictionary is primarily composed of original research. It cannot be considered a reliable source. If CNN, Reuters, etc... mentions the Clock Crew, then it should be mentioned. Inclusivedisjunction (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
If you ignore the dismissive and rather rude first word "Irrelevant", Idis is right,the torture game 2 is not 18 its for 10 year olds. Quoting Urbandictionary is a bit like quoting wikipedia. Yes it is small evidence of the Clocks reaching out, but no it doesn't really constitute a reliable source. I repeat, thier time will come. Please continue to be patient. Thank you.

IceDragon64 (talk) 02:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

New to wikipedia, so may be formatting this incorrectly. In any case, if I recall correctly, the game Castle Crashers for the Xbox 360 has a CarrotClock cameo. I'm not saying that is justification for a page, but it is does add a little legitimacy to the argument, no? Bktrey(Talk) 16:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It does, just a tiny little bit! IceDragon64 (talk) 10:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Umm,no Tom Fulp article?[edit]

It seems like when I type in tom fulp,it redirects to newgrounds...please elaborate on that?I remember vaguely of a tom fulp article on here and it's been deleted i think,could someone explain why at my talk page?I just think that he deserves his own article on wikipedia,well anyway just talk to me when you know what happened...Sammy theeditor (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that's fair, every band member for every band has their own article on here, why not Tom? And plus the MySpace Tom has his own article too. YBK

I would go with that. Can users please list here the key facts about Tom justifying his noteworthyness and some links from which someone could make a page for Tom. There are specific guidelines on Wikipedia (somewhere?) about how to create a page about a living person, so please do not rush this, but get it right.IceDragon64 (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Creator of NG the first portal for Flash animation, the first automated portal and still the biggest flash portal- Need watertight, inline ref if the page is to survive.
  • Featured on Attack of the Show- www.imdb.com/name/nm1024348/

can someone get imdb to put this ref right, it was Attack by the time Tom went on it, not Screen Savers.

  • Co-creator of Alien Hominid- first Flash animation game to be made for console- www.imdb.com/name/nm1024348/

IceDragon64 (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If you feel a Tom Fulp article is necessary and have reliable sources to back up your claims do so. However please do not rely on IMDB alone, it allows anyone to contribute. UniversalBread (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

universal bread is right, I could have done it but I wouldn't give my credit card details. where else can we look? IceDragon64 (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Newgrounds features an autobiography of Fulp and we can assume the information provided on his account is accurate considering he operates it himself. Refrain from using the forums as they are (obviously) unreliable, however he is placed on certain lists as one of the most succesful website owners in terms of amount of currency. Articles covering the controversy with the Teletubies short films may provide information on the man himself, also don't be afraid to utilize Google books. UniversalBread (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There is currently a small article on Tom. Can somebody give it some refs etc before it gets deleted again!

Happy days! The article is taking shape. We have refs and the news of his child. Please join in and build this article. If you go into the Discussion page you will find a simple list of things we need. IceDragon64 (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

IceDragon64 (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

New sections on the Store, the Portal, Judgment etc.[edit]

The new section written about submission etc. was well intended, I'm sure, but not very encyclopedic. The Store thing looked like an advert, this site is about an encylopedia written for the world and NG's store is not very noteworthy on a world scale, so I trimmed it to a mention. We don't write telling the reader how they should submit, we tell how a person would submit, the details were a little untidy too. Please understand that outsiders judge Wikipedia by their first impressions, so these things do matter. Don't be put of contributing, just don't be surprised if people keep trying to tidy it up:) The sections, as I currently have them, are far from perfect and need some in-line references. For example we need some factual comparisons of different sites that people can upload Flash onto. If we want to say that NG is the best, we must be able to prove it. Is there anywhere else that auto-deletes with user voting? Is NG the place with the most Flash submissions in a day? It surely isn't the biggest site that one can upload Flash onto; I would have thought that would be devaintArt. IceDragon64 (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


Order of sections[edit]

I think the sections are in the wrong order. I cannot see that the first section someone from the world outside NG would want to read after the introduction would be Front Page. I realise that this is the first page one usually sees, but I still think that the Portal Page is the key section here and should come first. However, I will not be pushy and swap them, we get enough messing around here as it is. Please give me some feedback before I consider actually doing it, maybe in Sept. 08:

IceDragon64 (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Nah, crap idea, totally changed my mind. Its got to be in the order one would come to it.

IceDragon64 (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Signifigance of the Portals rating system to the modern internet.[edit]

I didn’t see any mention of the importance of the portals rating system. I’m not sure but I think newgrounds may have been one of the first sites with user ratable content(besides hot or not)Newgrounds predates Digg and Fark and both work off of this principle. Allowing the users to rate the content was the biggest leap forward up to that point and was done entirely because the backlog of content was too massive for Tom, Wade and their friends to keep up with. I can remember Tom Fulp developing the rating system for months before it finally came out and how relived he said he was that he didnt have to spend time doing it anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.6.226 (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is finding good sources for this information. If you can find a good source, then please do insert some info. At the moment, the page does not fully express the significance of NG when read by an outsider. IceDragon64 (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually the information included in this article does not necessarily require significance to modern internet culture but rather the culture and customs of Newgrounds itself. This article obviously was conceived to provide data relating to Newgrounds the actual site, not the internet, therefore I see no reason why every section of the article has to pertain to Newgrounds most notorious aspects. UniversalBread (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking that the parts of the article should be considered for notability in the same way as the subject of the article itself. I am imagining that the article will be mostly read by those who from the outside who want to learn about Newgrounds, rather than NG users themselves, who already know this stuff. Anyone else got thoughts?

IceDragon64 (talk) 02:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Collections[edit]

I have been bold and edited the Collections section a bit. The choice of which subs go into the collection is NOT primarily made by the users. If you look in each collection there is a list of which were the most popular suggestions by viewers which is often quite different to that of the actual collection. Obviously the suggestions draw their attention and the number of votes helps, but nothing about the info on the site says that the collections are mostly based on those votes. Although I have no objection to the Clock Crew being used as an example in a couple of small ways on this page, given that their work and their community is a significant part of NG, the insertion of their web site address is not relevent here, or anywhere else and is all too likely to result in rival assertions by other groups. IceDragon64 (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


Much improved text on Portal[edit]

Thanks to 86.158.21.28- this is much better. It is certainly true that Newgrounds existed before the portal and, yes it is laid out much better now. Please join up -86.158.21.28- and talk to us- we could do with your help some more!

IceDragon64 (talk) 13:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


Controversial[edit]

Whilst it is true that people don't go to war over the subject matter on the NG wikipedia page, the page is still controversial to those who edit it and the tag is probably useful to show that someone is trying to sort this out and step by step improve this much edited page. If you read the actual words in the Controversial tag, that is what we need whilst we try and work on improving the page.

IceDragon64 (talk) 09:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Also considering the obscure content hosted on the site, often controversial due to it pertaining to tragic events such as school shootings, it would seem appropriate. UniversalBread (talk) 23:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Whilst. 70.114.205.67 (talk) 03:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Too notable for Low-importance Internet culture articles[edit]

Even a gay porn site is on High-importance Internet culture articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.183.138 (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


Semi-protect?[edit]

How much vandalism does a page have to suffer before it is considered for semi-protecting? Is this page a candidate?

IceDragon64 (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


Archive this page?[edit]

I don't know what the done thing is with these talk pages that get too long. Should we archive it and start again, or can we edit out sections that are clearly redundant now?

IceDragon64 (talk) 10:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Compare with other sites[edit]

Are there other sites for submitting Flash to that could be compared with NG, in order to establish what is unique to NG or what makes it special? For example, are Crews present on other sites, if not, then crews are particularly significant on NG ahd should get a section. IceDragon64 (talk) 10:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


Thomas Briggs[edit]

I see that an article about Thomas Briggs appeared on the NG page then was deleted. The deletion is correct, because it does not have a proper refference, but if there is any truth in it, could someone please find it out and put it up, as it is an important story of NG's influancing the world beyond its own site and compares significantly with other events on and around NG.

IceDragon64 (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. Its done now. Thanks.

IceDragon64 (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Voting on Top Monthly Submissions[edit]

The place where it says only the top 2000 active users on newgrounds can vote is wrong. They changed the style in January so more people can vote. Does anyone know a number for that? Cainine (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

When I asked liljim about it he wasn't for sure himself. He says it might have increased to the top 10,000 in this thread. [1] Crimsonedge34 (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Userpages[edit]

A new user raised an interesting point - should we have a section on userpages in the article? I personally don't think it's overly important to the article itself, but maybe it could be worked into a small section - like IceDragon64 said earlier in an archive, the redesign isn't extremely important to the article itself. I also don't want to dictate whether we should have a small section on userpages; I want at least one other person's input. LedgendGamer 20:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the important thing with deciding what should go in is to imagine what an outsider, ie, someone that DOESN'T already know all about NG would come here for. The people who want to tell the world about NG have an urge to come here and tell everyone about everything (including themselves, sometimes! but that is not really what an encyclopedia is for. Generally, I think people would come here to read about the basics of the site summed up and perhaps compared with other sites. If they wanted to know the details, like lists of top people etc, they would expect to go to the site. In this case, I would imagine that the userpage would be refered to as part of a brief section about Users, which ideally, would be briefly compared to membership features of any similar sites. The actual user page would not need a section of its own unless there is something really notable about it. If external references showed that there is something special or of particular interest about the pages- something that an outsider would think of as notable, then maybe. If anyone has ideas then note them here and Ledgend Gamer and I will certainly read and consider it.
Thanks, LG for your continuing work on this challenging page!
IceDragon64 (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Not true[edit]

"Newgrounds is distinguished from other Flash websites by its automated submission and rating system" No! Many sites do this! Kongregate, 2flashgames, freeonlinegames, and much more! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.119.114 (talk) 02:38, April 15, 2009

You raise a good point - do you have any suggestions for what we should do about it? Deleting the comment outright is always an option, but it could be changed as well. LedgendGamer 03:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Right, but it is fair to say that the way the automated submission and rating system works is unique. Although other websites do the same, they don't do it exactly like newgrounds; therefore, the statement is technically true in how it is worded. However, adding additional information in the sentence further explaining why it is distinguished by the system would be better. --68.101.87.22 (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree with the user above me, newgrounds rating and submission system is quite unique,and it was also the first of its kind, although no reliable source can be found to prove it, i think it was implemented round 2001 and was concidered to be pretty new at that time, ofcourse, now with other sites using the same system, Newgrounds seems to drown in all the attention around it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.16.98 (talk) 08:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Symbolic People[edit]

I've taken the liberty of temporarily placing the list of famous people in a collapsible table. I've done this for one primary reason:

  • It disrupted the page in the way it was outlined.

As a newgrounder, I understand the desire to place a list of well-known newgrounders on the article. However, as an editor, I can point us to several policies that discourage this, such as WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:TRIVIA, as well as WP:N. To be blunt, although these people are well known to newgrounders like us, the average reader couldn't care too much - it comes across as cruft. If any other well-established editor were to come across that list, they'd most likely delete it on sight for three reasons:

  1. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
  2. Trivia sections should be avoided.
  3. The list is full of people who would be considered unimportant by your average reader. (Fancruft)

The list of people mentioned in the media section are mentioned there because they have had a real-life impact outside of Newgrounds on the greater part of the world, and because references back this up. I don't want to delete perfectly good information, but we might not have a choice. I'm open to suggestions. LedgendGamer 23:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I totally back LG in this.
IceDragon64 (talk) 08:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I have had a look at it and a think- I would prefer to delete the whole section. I think that people who want to know about people inside NG would/should go to NG. This encyclopedia page should be about summing up the site for people who are outside and comparing it with other sites etc.- Doing things that the NG site cannot objectively do. Certainly LG's collapsible table is the Least I would do. This list could easily get out of hand anyway- if we are to keep it, we should have a clear definition of what people should be in it, otherwise, what is to stop everybody being on it? I am one of the top reviewers, but I wouldn't put myself on it. Comments?
I think that, at the very least, the awards section should be kept. It outlines the awards a submission can win, and in a simple manner so visitors to the site actually understand what all the small trophies and icons mean. I'd have to say that my biggest concern with the list of famous people, at the moment, is that it really comes across as fancruft - something that will end up hurting the article. Perhaps we should take inspiration from articles like Something Awful (B class) - it focuses on the site's actual content, with only a small section devoted to the users. LedgendGamer 22:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems as though we're also seeing problems with verifiability. Until we can come up with a way to display this information in a neutral, verifiable, non-cruft, non-intrusive manner (if it exists), I'm going to go ahead and delete the section. LedgendGamer 20:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Negative attention?[edit]

you say negative attention in the article, but media coverage because of a violent game results into more visitors so being positive, there is no such thing as negative attention for a website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.251.99.102 (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

  • In the short term this is true- the old expression "There's no such thing as bad publicity" is familiar in all walks of life. However, it is just an expression, not a fact. If it were always true then the phrase "Bad Publicity" would no longer exist, whereas bad publicity can destroy reputations, companies, people etc anywhere. Whether it is true in the longer term depends on more subtle things. If members/regulars are put off by contents and cease regular hits or advertisers pull out of something with a bad reputation, then that may be more valuable than a flurry of temporary curiosity.

IceDragon64 (talk) 09:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please excuse my dear aunt sally[edit]

This is how the videos used to be rated. Change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.114.235 (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

About the DD[edit]

I changed "spam group known as the Duck Division" into "spam group" (in the Art Portal-Attack section), because users from newgrounds consider that giving this crew credit for what they do is only bad for the site, as this cyber terrorists will see that they get credit for what they do and will keep doing it. If that edit was something incorrect, please forgive me and change it. VirusN (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Tank Awards[edit]

The table title says "Complete List of Newgrounds Tank Awards Winners", even though the list ends after 2008! Someone should really change that. ☠ QuackOfaThousandSuns (Talk) ☠ 18:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The list ends after 2008 because the 2009 Tank Awards Winners haven't been announced yet. Voting hasn't even started yet. LedgendGamer 22:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


Wikigrounds[edit]

I hope y'all don't mind my adding an advert for the now established wiki for Newgrounds- Wikigrounds on Wikia. We now have over 200 pages and nearly 200 registered users. If you are writing pages about anything on Newgrounds, please consider adding a link to us and our page- and writing that page it there isn't one! Do please visit and get involved.

IceDragon64 (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Art portal and CC-licencing[edit]

It's possible to use Creative Commons licences when submitting to the Art portal, but the article states that all submitted art is CC-licensed. I couldn't find anything to back up that statement. As far as I know CC-licenced stuff on Art portal can be found under "FILTERS -> Developer resources" and using a CC-licence is not compulsory. Veikk0.ma (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No it's not compulsorily to use CC licenses since a user can uncheck the "Use a Creative Commons license?" box when a user submits work. Link So that part of the article is wrong. Crimsonedge34 (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - sentence reworded. I checked, it seems possible to opt out of using the license. LedgendGamer 03:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Why has the Pico page been deleted?[edit]

I don't understand why when you type in "Pico (Newgrounds)", "Pico (mascot) or "Pico (newgrounds.com)" it just redirects to Newgrounds. It used to be here! BUT WHERE IS IT?!?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Souvalou (talkcontribs) 23:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done fixed.--Graythos1 (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


Pico page is still broken —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.210.8 (talk) 04:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Some of the sources[edit]

here are really screwy. We can't link to forums and twitter accounts on Wikipedia unless they really are attributable to reliable, third-party sources. Certain sources for this article need to be re-written entirely.--Malleus Felonius (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Audio Portal list[edit]

The part where it list several Audio Portal artist need to go. The problem of having something like that is the it's susceptible to spam with everyone trying to list every single artist that submits audio. Not to mention, none of them are Notable enough to even be on Wikipedia. Maybe if one of them went on to sign a major record deal or have their own article, then it might warrant mentioning them. --Crimsonedge34 (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"All your base" in the media[edit]

Years ago, "all your base are belong to us" was in the media also.

newgrounds played a major part in spreading this, as a user called bad-CRC made a song out of it. 218.186.17.247 (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

NG joins the blackout.[edit]

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1289798 Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 23:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA[edit]

I have taken the liberty of adding the SOPA protest in the front page section of the article as it blocked the frontpage of Newgrounds for 12 hours.

Regards. [[[User:Zultra2|Zultra2]] (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)]

Add the redesing nwegrounds , thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.13.28.210 (talk) 09:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

New Categorey or page: List of (Famus) Newgrounds Authors[edit]

I was thinking that Wiki could use a page or a category with a list of well-known authors on Newgroudns. Any author could be added then there could be other lists of those with higher amounts of hits/other submitting stats... if it is a page. Would you rather it be a page or a category? Some authors to add for example are Adam Philips, Tom Fulp, Dan Paladin, Edmund McMillen, David Firth, (I for get the name but he made Wheebl and Bob), etc.

I think it would be useful to be able to look up various authors from NG and see what else is to be said on Wiki, stright from one page. So what do you think?

5:23 PM (-4:00 GMT) 02/09/2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterfiend (talkcontribs) 20:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Outside point of view[edit]

The whole page needs reviewing by/with someone who is NOT from the NG community, so that it actually reads as it should for someone from the outside coming to find out about Newgrounds- since that is what Wikipedia is FOR.

One simple example of this is the quote:

"...This incident is cited as one of the reasons Ross was hired..." without explaining who Ross is. We need a newgrounder to grab an outside Wikipedian or something and go through the site seeing it from their point of view. Please.

IceDragon64 (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Will Stamper[edit]

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia. I looked up Will Stamper, but yet there are no details about him, and it redirects to this page. Why? KittenLover17 (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)