Talk:Troll (slang)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Troll (slang) 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

Internet culture Start‑class High‑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

Start

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

High

This article has been rated as High-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

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Media Watch (2008 November 10). ""Trolling" the Airwaves". {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Image Caption

I really like how the image caption has a citation needed tag. The irony is awesome. --Donkdonk (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I think the coolface/trollface should be added, its become a fairly ubiquitous image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.132.90 (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protect

This page gets so much vandalism from anonymous users. I think we should make the page to where only registered users can edit it.While it won't stop it will reduce.Umishiru (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can try at WP:RFPP. Johnuniq (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does any qualified wikipedian think this deserves to be an "External Link"?

"Internet Trolls" from trollwatch @ aol.com at the Internet Archive

69.105.137.161 (talk) 10:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concern troll section

Looks decidedly biased, as if written by someone from media matters or some other defunct liberal organization. Need to be edited or removed to preserve the integrity of wiki. Conservative/liberal mentions have no place in an article not related to politics in any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.209.233 (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since a concern troll works by disguising his POV and pretending to speak for the opposite POV, how does one give examples of such behavior without mentioning either the real or the faked POV of the concern troll? An example of a liberal pretending to be a conservative could add balance here; if you know of one mentioned in WP:RS as a concern troll, please add it. betsythedevine (talk) 12:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image of "Anonymous" and "Message to Scientology"

Anonymous' "Message to Scientology"

From Wikipedia policy on images: "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly related to the article's topic." It is my opinion that neither the picture of a green-skinned person nor a video that claims to deliver a message to scientology belongs in this article for that reason. I am temporarily placing them on this talk page so others can see them and we can reach consensus. betsythedevine (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those are instances of trolls protesting against Scientology. I don't see what you're talking about here. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Anonymous" is a very small and not very representative sample of Internet troll; adding 2 images and a page template linking this article to Scientology-warring violate WP:WEIGHT. The green-faced person in image 1 is not on the Internet, is therefore not "significantly related" to the article's topic. This article is also not an appropriate place for trolling groups to post ulitmatums against their foes, such as (for instance) your "Message to Scientology." I am not a fan of Scientology, I am simply trying to keep the articles on my watchlist in accordance with Wikipedia policy.betsythedevine (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

betsythedevine is correct; the removed material is not helpful in this article. Johnuniq (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of you have any right to refer to me as a troll. Please take that back immediately. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a misunderstanding because there is no suggestion that you are a troll, and the only reference to you that I can see is the above "your 'Message to Scientology'" remark which is simply identifying which "Message to Scientology" was meant (that is, the one you added). Johnuniq (talk) 01:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As John says. betsythedevine (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I read "trolling groups... your message" as implying that I was a part of these groups and trolling with them.

That's cleared up then. No worries.

Back to the topic-- I disagree about the relevance but I'm inclined to go with user consensus on this if the pictures are seen too much as decoration. I have no strong feelings about it. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 04:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trollface, coolface, troll cake images

thumb|right|300px|The troll face

I would like to seek a consensus on the talk page about an image to go at the head of the article, as a general illustration of the concept of Internet troll. Someone has suggested (uploaded/inserted) the CoolFace/TrollFace, an image with some troll-history of its own but no Wiki article.

The same edit removes/erases a more recent image that has the advantage of showcasing several different memes about trolling.

File:TROLL-CAKE.jpg

A prank cake using common troll motifs such as the acronym 'YHBT' (You Have Been Trolled), the term 'pwned', and Guy Fawkes masks.

My feeling is that the TrollFace will be meaningless to most people even though it has a lot of meaning to some. I would like to get consensus here from other editors, however. Do we use both? Neither and find a better one to encapsulate/illustrate trolling for our readers? betsythedevine (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Troll Face is much more relevant and widespread than the cake image. How many times have you seen that cake image on the internet, and how many times have you seen the Troll Face?