Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Encyclopedia Dramatica 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

Websites: Computing C‑class

	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.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Internet culture C‑class Mid‑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

C

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

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-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

Comedy C‑class Mid‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wikipedia C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Template:Multidel

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by .

Possible source?

News article mentioning ED.--I've Never Been to Me (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, put that in please.--Whaaa aaahW? (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Displaying external link

Besides the distressing and shocking nature visitors would be unaware of, on http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/encyclopediadramatica.com users reported browser exploits and malware.

Yawn. We've discussed this several times before, and the conclusion seemed to be that ED itself does not contain anything harmful to your computer, but that you should take care when clicking links (much as you should anywhere else on the internet). -- Bobyllib (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually comment on or edit Wikipedia, but I can't believe there isn't a better warning on the external link or in the website description. Terms like "crude", "offensive", "obscene", and "shock value" are too vague; these are the kind of words that could just as easily describe network TV by media critics.

"Take care when clicking links"? That's good general advice, but it doesn't apply so much to ED, where a benign thumbnail picture links to a shock image. I'm adding a warning to the external link. 77.222.43.93 (talk) 08:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... never mind. Can't edit. But honestly, would it hurt to add "contains extreme graphic violence" warning? I'm not looking for a discussion; I'm probably never coming back to this page, I just wanted to write something so some poor unsuspecting person doesn't wander into this because they did not understand the extent of the material. 77.222.43.93 (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: whitelisting the "About" page

Should we whitelist the link to ED's "About" page? It has been used as a reference for months with no problems. Also, it's a fully-protected page that only admins edit, and is actually a serious page. A request to the local whitelist was made here, but the admin rejected until it was shown that there was "arbcom, foundation or equivelent community support" for the whitelisting. I choose community support, so here we are. Please opinate if there is a problem or not with whitelisting this page:

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Encyclopedia_Dramatica:About

Past discussions:

Arbcom links:

--Enric Naval (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Abd (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "equivalent support" couldn't be determined here, but this could be a good basis for seeking it. An RfC on an article talk page isn't equivalent to ArbComm or the Foundation. I'd argue that if the nowiki'd URL has stuck, it's sufficient evidence for an actual link. If it shouldn't be linked, it shouldn't have a nowiki link either! --Abd (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I highly doubt the page will remain a "serious page" if we link to it. Not sure if that matters. Over all I'm neutral on this issue. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Effectively the same thing as having the base domain whitelisted. Protonk (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:NOTCENSORED. --Alexc3 ^(talk) 04:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support adding to whitelist. On the offchance that they redirect it to goatse or something equally silly, we can just delink it. Firestorm ^Talk 04:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nobody is going to change the content of that page. It is full protected page that has only had 3 edits since 2006. -- Zaiger_talkplx 02:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support to get rid of another of the vestiges of BADSITES still hanging around. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The rational for blacklisting it is not nearly strong enough, IMHO. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some People Say

I thought we weren't supposed to use the term "some people say" on wikipedia. In the Content section, first paragraph there is a line that reads "...which some argue implies that it is a platform from which to intentionally provoke a negative emotional response." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paskari (talk • contribs) 08:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Who in their right mind agreed that crap like that should really even be posted? That site is an eye sore and it should be taken down. --FairlyOddStar (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you do understand that there is no one in charge of the Internet, and anyone with the money to pay for a website can post nearly anything they want? And do you further understand that if there was someone in charge, who could make unwanted websites go away, we would probably not be writing articles? That's the dance we signed up for here in the twenty first century.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this protected?

Why is this protected?--Cddoughty (talk) 09:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism target, anyone would agree that this page should stay protected. Momo san ^Gespräch 15:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well I don't see ANY vandalism.--Cddoughty (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because it's protected? Are you looking to contribute to the page? I can grant you confirmed status to edit through the semi protection. What is it you're trying to change? –xeno^talk 15:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i am wondering why it is protected, i looked in the history for vandalism and dont see any.--Cddoughty (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer the other half of Xeno's question, what edits do you plan to make to this page? Momo san ^Gespräch 15:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i dont know until i can edit it.--Cddoughty (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~The page has been protected since January, look at the history prior to that and you'll see plenty vandalism.~~ Copy the page to your userspace, make some improvements and then I will grant the confirmed flag so you can edit it. –xeno^talk 15:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i can only see two vandal edits since January.--Cddoughty (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no need for this page to be protected, it should be unprotected. Users do not have to give justification for unprotecting an article that isn't even vandalised. Majorly talk 15:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so is anyone going to unprotect it yet?--Cddoughty (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to have been protected pre-emptively in May 2008 when it was re-created in the mainspace. I think we can give unprotection a try. –xeno^talk 15:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so is there any reason why this page is protected?--Cddoughty (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's Encyclopedia Dramatica? --Smashville^talk 15:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what?--Cddoughty (talk) 15:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cddoughty, you have been asked repeatedly both here and on the unprotection request page what edits you plan on making to the page. You ask that others answer your questions but then refuse (or ignore) to answer questions yourself. Please state, for the record, what edits you would either make yourself or would like to be made to this page. I appreciate and look forward to your response. Thank you. Wperdue (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected I'm looking forward to seeing your improvements, Cddoughty. –xeno^talk 16:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i didn't know you had to say what you wanted to edit on the page before getting it unprotected, i was going to think about that when i could edit it.--Cddoughty (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to do anything, but it is usually considered polite on Wikipedia to not ignore people who are asking questions. I also look forward to your edits. Wperdue (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

or maybe i didnt have an answer because you weren't telling me why it was protected and if it was going to unprotected or not.--Cddoughty (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the answer was clear and was stated several times. This page will be vandalized as it has been every time it has been unprotected. If that was not clear to you, I apologize. Wperdue (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey look at all the vandalism! I think it needs protection again!--Cddoughty (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really want to go down this road? Think and refactor your comment. --Smashville^talk 19:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just like being right.--Cddoughty (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying really hard to assume good faith with you, Cddoughty. Please head over to the explanation of civility for a quick read. Thanks. Wperdue (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time... Give it time... P.S. I was hoping to see something more substantive than cosmetic changes. –xeno^talk 19:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the protection notice which may make your prediction come true.--Cddoughty (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I put it back. Wikipedia isn't your playground. --Smashville^talk 19:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the page isn't protected, the template has no effect (padlock image doesn't show); so it doesn't really matter one way or the other. –xeno^talk 19:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaand I'm dumb. --Smashville^talk 19:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

;> I put pp-move-indef there. That wont be changing. –xeno^talk 20:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so you want a semi protection template even though it isn't protected anymore? why is that?--Cddoughty (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]