Talk:4chan

	Archives
	1 \| 2 \| 3 \| 4 \| 5 \| 6

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 4chan article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18

Internet culture GA‑class Top‑importance

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.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

GA

This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Template:TrollWarning

These quotes are straight from Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is an official and founding policy of Wikipedia.

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

"Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources."

"The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic."

re/b/oot

Think we should metion anything about moot taking /b/ back over and banning the mods? Tirus 14:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless we have sources. -Wo o ty Woot? contribs 19:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? That sounds interesting. Just label it as heresay / temporary news. Part of the function of Wikipedia is to report on things ; very sources, sure, but obviously you both heard it somewhere; just label it as speculation ... - Guest 08:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wooty, would you do the honors, (simply because i dont know how to report speculation...) Tirus 14:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do not report speculation, "Guest", we are an encyclopedia, a collection of what other people say, not a gossip column or a newspaper. If nobody has reported on the re/b/oot, we can't talk about it. Similarly, I can't add "so I herd that Tirus lieks Mudkips" to the Mudkip article because no reliable source has said so. -Wo o ty Woot? contribs 20:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you shouldn't mention things that didn't happen. MrVacBob 00:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't happen? Having Cotton-Eyed Joe stuck in my head the last few weeks begs to differ, unless you are refering to the 'banning the mods' bit which I assume is just rumour. As for sources the image already used in 4chan#Anonymity should be fine to verify the use of the term 're/b/oot' as official. Anyone interested in re/b/oot should check dramatica or wikichan. --Lodlongs 07:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think we're supposed to use images to circumvent the need for reliable sources or verification. -Wo o ty Woot? contribs 00:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"moot taking /b/ back over and banning the mods?" didn't happen. The event as a whole did but I don't think it's notable. MrVacBob 22:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, I'm gone for a day and this thread erupts... Tirus 14:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this at least warrants a section in 4chan#Anonymity, as /b/ was forced anon for so long but isn't any longer. As for sources, the entire thread, albeit without the javascript/css hacks is archived at the 4chan archive. 12.66.43.157 18:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for semi-protect

... ~Provide explanation of why page is locked here, with link to lock-specific discussion.~ ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.131.11.21 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: I moved this comment from the top of the page and placed it in a new heading. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 02:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what are you talking about? Tirus 18:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I kept changing all instances of "moot" to "mootykins" childish, i know. 88.106.124.69 13:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hahaha, good ole mootykins Tirus 14:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caturday

I came here looking for what 'Caturday' is supposed to be and got redirected to 4chan, which doesn't happen to mention Caturday at all... I know that wikipedia likes to edit things so that we don't have many internet-phenomenon articles (arguably rightly so), but you shouldn't redirect things to articles with no information on them.--129.215.149.99 10:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Memes are unsourceable. There's all sorts of meme redirects that aren't in the article. Check http://www.lurkmore.com/wiki/index.php?title=4chan#C under "Cats" for the answer to your question. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 04:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd say that's fine too. ;) -Wo o ty Woot? contribs 19:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say we need more memes::: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamsoup (talk • contribs) 20:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I noticed the caturday redirect is gone. It would have better redirected to Kittah (which is not a name I hear much any more tbh) anyway General Miaow Say Hello! 19:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Tech massacre and /b/

I'm removing the Virginia Tech blurb in the article for a few reasons:

The Toronto Star article quotes planetblacksburg.com. I cannot find an article about "4chan" or "anonymous" on that site.
Talk:Virginia Tech massacre seems to think this is a hoax. Here is the link: Talk:Virginia Tech massacre/Archive 6#4chan posting

I think there should be some more verification on this before it is added back in. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 01:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. It was shooped, someone deleted the 1 at the start, then someone else shooped a 0 in later, but both were faked. -Wo o ty Woot? contribs 02:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

planetblacksburg.com had an article on it, but it was deleted once they saw it was a hoax. Please do not re-introduce section until we have reliable source that says it was a hoax. --129.241.126.121 12:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

star article about 4chan it may turn out to be notable Greenteagurlie

The article in the Toronto Star seems to have been taken down. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 17:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expressen.se still has it [1]. --GunnarRene 17:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not anymore, lol. (Steampowered 00:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

Yes it does. --GunnarRene 19:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guess it was down when I checked. (Steampowered 23:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

Some one should get a place that has the story and mirror it to a webserver or something so we can have a source ^_^. Tirus 14:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 13th

I've added a few lines about moot's redesign of /b/, as of this morning. --Papen 10:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this notice as moot has been doing crazy shit to /b/ for months now, and this isn't that different from when that music was playing and the background was flashing, so it's not notable, IMO.--十八 11:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. --Papen 11:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What ahppened anyway? Is it gong to be fixed? 70.142.20.138

It appears to be broken at this point. The page is screwed up under both Firefox and IE.--72.130.143.25 00:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I regret to inform that that is precisely what moot wants you to think.

"you know right now the other "*chans" (jesus i hate this made up word) are probably salivating at the thought of snagging extra users. i say we let them have 'em. 'and nothing of value was lost.' right?"

The page is perfectly viewable if you know how (no, NOT by manually highlighting everything)... since you don't know how, moot does not want you to view it. Sorry. Snarfies 02:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell how plz thanks, 70.142.20.138 03:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're using Firefox, click on "View" on the toolbar, then "Page Style", then "No style." Took me all of fifteen seconds to figure out. The amount of pride I feel right now only demonstrates how tired I am.--72.130.143.25 06:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As of the 14th at 11PM, /b/ is in utter shutdown. all others appear to be fine, but the color-code butt-fark has detered all posting from /b/. Not a single post this afternoon.--63.135.21.99 03:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archives
1 \| 2 \| 3 \| 4 \| 5 \| 6