Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lawrence Cohen (talk | contribs) at 20:31, 14 May 2008 (→‎Protected: protected editing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

See latest DRV Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 8. Note the closer explicitly does not preclude relisting at AFD if needed.

Wow

Thats a HUGE amount of references for a mid-importance site Retro Agnostic (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the page has had a huge amount of issues. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Several were not legit, and didn't even mention the site at all. I've removed those, as well as a few that fail WP:RS completely, some copyvio YouTube links, and one that was some private YouTube video. Someone may want to check the non-online ones to be sure they actually mention ED as well. Collectonian (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't AFD

I would strongly recommend not AFDing this page for at least a month as it would prove unduly divisive and disruptive, especially after such a strong consensus to recreate it. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need more articles to link to this

I'm sure we could start, somehow, by including links in the articles 4chan, Anonymous (group) and/or Project Chanology to here. But how should we do it without original research?--AnonymousUser12345 (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need more to link here. If relevant articles exist they will be linked as outside connections are documented. MBisanz talk 09:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've already tried but they keep getting reverted.--I LIVE IN A HAT (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe because there isn't consensus to link from those articles here. Just because its technically possible to link doesn't mean we must. MBisanz talk 15:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the places people have been trying to add links are completely inappropriate, too - like List of encyclopedias by branch of knowledge‎; ED is not an encyclopedia by any serious definition of the word. krimpet✽ 15:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And looking at the account adding the links, I'm getting the feeling of a SPA-TROLL at work. MBisanz talk 15:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B Class?

Erm, who rated this article as B class? Doesn't seem up to scratch, im my opinion. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 10:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did.--I LIVE IN A HAT (talk) 10:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't seem up to scratch to be a B class article. Lacks insufficient information, and is too short, to really be a B class article. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 11:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rated it B as it had to go through the most rigourous review in Wikipedia history.--I LIVE IN A HAT (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but struggles do not a B-Class article make. Downgraded to start, which may be too generous as well. Howa0082 (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks more like a stub to me. Very good as stubs go but the amount of actual content is still very limited. Hut 8.5 16:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using ED as a WP:SPS about itself

The article now reads, "The websites slogan is "In lulz we trust", a pun of In God We Trust.", and cites the ED main page. Personally I think this should be removed. We could write all we like about what ED says about itself, but due to the fact that it's a wiki, and a somewhat unstable one at that, I don't think we should use ED as a self-published source, because if we did so we could make the article a lot larger, but the quality would be vastly reduced.--AnonymousUser12345 (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slogans are on nearly all wikis, and nothing is wrong with self-published sources as long as they are encyclopedic and relevant.--I LIVE IN A HAT (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, but wikis aren't reliable sources anyway, specifically because anyone can edit them - in theory, the slogan could change. If a site-owner or operator is quoted in a secondary source as confirming that slogan, then we can use that source, but - ignoring the link issue - the site itself can change and should not be considered a reliable source. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the point of this website is that it often attempts humour by this use of patent falsehoods, exaggeration and sarcasm - and it extends this even to self-references. I don't think you can use it as a reliable source for anything, including itself. CIreland (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented out the slogan, in the absence of a reliable source to back it. No objection to re-adding it if such a source exists. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-added it with source.--I LIVE IN A HAT (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Please change the template to include revenue and the url of the site. Editprotected {{Infobox Website |name = Encyclopedia Dramatica |logo = [[Image:Ed_logo.png|100px|Official site logo]] |screenshot = [[Image:Ed mainpage.png|280px]] |caption = The main page of as of May 14, 2008. |url = http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Main_Page |commercial = Yes |type = [[Satire|Satirical]] [[wiki]] |language = English |registration = Optional |owner = |author = |launch date = |current status = Active |revenue = Ad driven |slogan = In lulz we trust. |alexa = }}

The URL is blacklisted. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't seem to be protected at the moment. And doesn't the blacklist now have the capability of granting special exceptions to allow links to blacklisted sites from particular articles? (It would stir up a huge hornet's nest to allow it in this case, but consistency with other website articles would seem to argue for it. We even link to Stormfront (website) on its article, after all.) *Dan T.* (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's the Spam-whitelist, but it doesn't seem to be possible to allow a URL to exist in just one article, sadly. --Conti|✉ 12:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs as references

My addition of another blog to the list of two other major blogs that used ED as a reference was undone on the grounds that blogs can't be used as references (even for themselves?), but isn't that true of the other two as well? (Or maybe the Gothamist network qualifies as a "news site" rather than a "blog", but in that case it probably shouldn't be referred to as a blog in this article.) *Dan T.* (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are blogs. There are some exceptions, but our verifiability policy is rather strict on blogs. If unsure, take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 12:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then shouldn't you be taking out the reference to AlterNet? (Personally, I have no problem with using a blog as a reference for the specific fact that ED was referenced in that blog, but I recognize that standards are being applied ultra-strictly in this article due to its controversial nature.) *Dan T.* (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] - Steve, per WP:SPS, some blogs can be used as references when appropriate. No comment on this specific case, but please get your policy right. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 13:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erk, my bad. :S Feel free to undo my edit. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 13:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that a blog is a website in a specific format. Most blogs are not reliable sources. But being in a blog format does not preclude a site from being reliable for a given claim. Just as most websites are not reliable sources does not mean no website can be used as a reliable source. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox images

Two things:

  1. Is the screenshot really necessary? We need to have as little fair-use content as possible. On the negative side, it's a bit offensive and the index page itself, I feel is not discussed critically enough.
  2. Is the logo actually fair-use? There may be a case for {{PD-textlogo}} because it's just text in a serif font, and there's nothing special about the logo.

Thanks, Sceptre (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There can't be two fair-use images in an article this short. I suggest we get rid of the screenshot which is pretty useless anyway. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And it's gone. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image is legit and in keeping with the standards for articles on websites. Wikipedia, Citizendium, Uncyclopedia, etc etc. Z00r (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but look at the lengths of those 3 articles. They're much longer than this article, and, as raised, in an article this short, 2 images seem to be unnecessary. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 15:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gone again. Please see WP:NFCC#3a. I'm merely enforcing policy. I'll take this to IfD if needed. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

link to ed

Currently the arbitration will clarify on whether or not the url can be added to the article. I was made aware after my edit via irc, so until that clarification is made, we should probably not re add the link. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link to the Arbitration motion, in hidden comment. It's blatantly obvious, so anyone adding a URL link, well would be rather blatantly ignoring it, or not reading it. Perhaps ArbCom will overturn that decision, however I find it unlikely. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a content/editorial decision by the Arbitration Committee? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the Arbitration Case.


And, additionally,

. I think that makes it rather clear, at least until they overturn their decision on these remedies. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know if this was anticipated when the remedy was made. It could be an inadvertent content decision.... they are however empowered to do so advertantly, I believe they will clarify shortly and the link will be permitted. They use common sense on these things. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Around here, what's common seems rarely sensible, and what's sensible not very common. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure, if they will allow a link. We will soon find out, I am sure. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was upheld with an ED article in mind; see [2]. Sceptre (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That "clarification" is far from definitive. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An ungodly mess is more like it, with arbitrators going many different contradictory directions that led many of them to vote against the proposal being considered then, leaving everybody to guess whether this ended up meaning that links were flatly banned, were to be treated in accordance with policy like all other content, or to be considered again at such time the ED article appears (which some hoped would be when hell froze over, but apparently it's reached the freezing point now). *Dan T.* (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But still, seven arbitrators out of nine opposed an exception to RFAR/MONGO r. 1 e. 1. for the article. The ban on links to ED applies to this article until AC rule otherwise. Sceptre (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, certainly. There's no reason not to wait for the clarification currently being requested. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The arbitrator comments included "If it is recreated then linking should follow the regular standards and it is always better avoiding exceptions." and "Manifestly, this is making policy" [which ArbCom isn't supposed to do]. At least those comments seemed to indicate that they were voting against a special exception because it was unnecessary; links were to be decided by normal editorial standards, not ArbCom fiat. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, except that they did, in fact, specifically ban all links to this site by fiat, so I'd like an explicit indication that this is an issue for the community to decide at least, before putting it here. There's no emergency here. We can wait for the clarification requested. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, this is silly. Isn't our regular standard to link to websites about which we write? I'd add it myself if I didn't think it'd be removed. WODUP 18:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its on the blacklist, Arbcom says no links to it, so we should try to evade with a disabled link. MBisanz talk 18:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the committee explicitly (or perhaps implicitly? - it's not clear) said a link could be included in this article[3] in its Marcy 2008 request for clarification[4]. Though I can't understand the outcome 100% it looks like a standard external link should be okay. Wikidemo (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those votes were 1 arb supporting a link and 7 opposing, with 1 abstention. MBisanz talk 18:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, it's not really clear to me that they were opposing a link in this situation so much as they were opposed to declaring that there should or should not be a link. Which is odd, since they already declared that there shouldn't be one, previously. Regardless, this is why we should wait for further clarification. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 7 opposes seemed to be all over the map about what their opposition actually meant, ranging from your position that it supported a link ban, through others saying that it meant that ArbCom shouldn't be making policy and normal editorial decisions should apply, as well as still other opinions to the effect that any decision was premature before the ED article existed. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really think it's best to wait until ArbCom clarifies their position on the link to ED. It's unclear what their decision is, thats why there are Requests for Clarification. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 19:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that the arbcom clarification is hard to figure out. Plus, most of them seemed to be reaching the question whether citation links to source material in this article would be okay, not a routine external link to the main page. In voting on and rejecting the proposal some members seemed to assume there was a default that linking was okay for this article and that the proposal was for a restriction on those links; others seemed to assume the default was that no linking was permitted due to their earlier decision and the proposal was an exception to permit links in limited cases. Not sure if we ought to demand a further clarification from them or just do it. Is anyone actually objecting to the link in principle, or are those who are removing it simply doing it to honor the apparent outcome of the Arbcom decision?Wikidemo (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom is a dispute resolution body, not a dictator of policy. It can be safely ignored on this issue. Martinp23 19:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I wish about the original MONGO ArbCom decision is that it be dead, buried, then dug up, chopped into little pieces, and flushed down the toilet. Unfortunately, this sane and reasonable outcome doesn't seem about to happen, so a clarification in favor of following normal link policy would be a reasonable second choice. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we can't really ignore it because other users won't ingore it and will edit war to remove it, citing the rulings as support and why they're exempt from 3RR. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair I'd readily block anyone who did that. Martinp23 19:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom is a dispute resolution body, but they can impose any solution which will be considered binding. Don't confuse their refusal to enter into content/policy disputes with a restriction on them entering content/policy disputes - nothing in the arbitration policy precludes them from passing such rulings. Sceptre (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Their own precedent does though. Martinp23 19:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why on earth is this discussion still ongoing? Of course it should be linked to, it's common sense, it isn't being linked to for the purpose of harrasment, it's an article about encyclopedia dramatica, people will want the URL, and we do i on all other articles about websites. This is what WP:IAR is all about. I can see absolutly no way anyone could justify removing the link, arbcom is irrelevant here, if any of you thought for yourselves for a moment you'd agree.--Phoenix-wiki 19:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The original ArbCom decision seems to have caused a lot more disputes than it has ever resolved. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I added it because it's the encyclopedic thing to do. I hope it stays (actually, I hope it's removed from th eblacklist and converted into a working link). WODUP 19:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I tried adding the link and it's been blacklisted, so blocked by spam filter. Can't be added I'm afraid, unless an admin wants to.--Phoenix-wiki 19:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great WODUP, that's great, leave it like that people, it's encyclopediodic.--Phoenix-wiki 19:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I Sceptre removed again, lets wait for arbcom to say something on the matter. MBisanz talk 19:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I figured this would have happened much earlier in the day - the article is now fully protected. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, by the way, I tried to link, but was stopped by the filter. I tried... WODUP 19:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the advantage in doing something just because ArbCom once said something. Does removing the URL improve the article? Does adding it improve the article? Does keeping the URL do some kind of harm? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is No Deadline, so delaying the insertion of a URL that is patently obvious from the article's context and any one of the multiple references provided is not of pressing concern. Clarification or no, there's no urgency. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree with everyone here. Adding the URL clearly helps the article but in a minor way, the way any WP:EL would - that's why we have a field for it in the infobox. But no urgency. It's funny that we're getting all dramatica ourselves here. Wikidemo (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advance warning

Just a quick warning that there is likely to be an influx of trolling after this comment was made on Uncyclopedia. I know the two wikis don't exactly hit it off, but it may still attract the idiots. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 18:42, May 14, 2008 (UTC)

vandalism

some guy deleted about half the sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.123.93.132 (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were links to unreliable sources such as blogs and sites which didn't even mention ED. Enforcing Wikipedia's content policies is not vandalism. Hut 8.5 19:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plea for Harvard style

Collectionian made a good-faith reversion to the embedded-link style of reference rather than the standard Harvard-style that I prefer - mainly because embedded links in references make the source text completely unreadable. Plea to return to a standard and widely-used academic style of referencing? Peter Damian (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe both are permitted per WP:MoS, so the version first in the article is the one used. MBisanz talk 19:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The method of embedding URL's in the source text, which makes it unreadable, is not recommended, as far as I can see. Peter Damian (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I converted it from {{reflist}} to {{reflist|2}}. Looks neater, I think. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 19:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are all listed at Wikipedia:CITE#How_to_cite_sources as permissible.MBisanz talk 19:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict x2)That is purely wrong, and it is the most widely used method on Wikipedia, particularly in articles of this type. There is nothing wrong with the current style and Harvard style is wholly inappropriate and useless for this type of article. I undid the reflist|2 because it doesn't have enough to warrant it. When it has 20, then you can two column it.Collectonian (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still haven't found any reference on the style manuals to embedded URLs. There is a recognised difference between putting the name of the work in the ref itself, and Harvard style, yes. But these two methods do not include actually embedding the URL in the text itself, which is barbaric. Peter Damian (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no, it is not "barbaric" and it is perfectly fine. Hence the existance of the cite web template, and for in-line citations. There is nothing wrong with the citations being directly in the text, where they belong. I personally find shoving everything to the bottom and forcing people to hunt around to find stuff to be barbaric, ugly, and less than useless. If you really think it doesn't belong, why don't you go argue the dozens and dozens of featured articles using the same style as this article. This is not academia and you can't force those ugly Harvard styles on anyone. If consensus doesn't agree it belongs, we use the regular citation method. Oh, and the link MBisanz gives above supports it just fine, if you read of context.Collectonian (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a non-cite-dork user, I totally do not understand this issue, beyond Pete wants to use one type of citation, and Collectonian wants another. So that I don't have to go digging (because I am extremely lazy), can these differences be explained, to help further concensus? Howa0082 (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the style Peter links [5], which is rarely to never used outside of academia topics. It shoves all the references and stuff to the bottom, then just puts (last name) in the text between the ref tags. So if you want to edit the source, or make a correction, you have to go hunt it down at the bottom of the page and try to match it. My method is the typical and standard method of having the source between the reference tags where it belongs. Collectonian (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again NO! See C's talk page. It is the use of URLs in references that I object to, because then you have to write a whole paragraph through a briar thicket of URLs. Peter Damian (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, if we cite an online source as a reference for a particular piece of information (as we surely must, if the subject is a website), don't we have to provide the URL? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) And, as I said on my talk page, frankly you need to get over it. Its an article about a website. There is no sane reason to dump every last ref with a URL (which will be 90-99% of them) to the bottom just because YOU don't like seeing a URL while you're editing it. Collectonian (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look I'm the person who rewrote that paragraph. As I commented on your talk page, you appear to be one of the many editors who edit one line at a time, without reading the whole thing. I rewrote the para. Why can't I provide the style of referencing I am comfortable with?? Peter Damian (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your arrogant, and frankly wrong, presumption that I edit "one line at time" is just plain asinine, and mildly insulting, and has no place in this argument. As for why can't you provide the style you are comfortable with: because consensus doesn't agree with you, because the article had an established referencing style, and because your don't to make the other 99% of editors comfortable just for your sake. Collectonian (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict?!?!!!1) Personally, dude, I find it not-at-all difficult to sift through the inline style when I'm editing. And, if I understand this right, Harvard-style doesn't let you name a ref in the code, then just type <ref name=Reference/> to add another citation to that same reference? Howa0082 (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I am objecting to

There is a complete confusion about what I am complaining about here. I have no particular beef about whether the reference, without URL, is located inside the 'ref' tags in the source text. It's when URLs are linked that I go mad. I cannot edit a whole paragraph into a single coherent thought when faced with this. Below is what you now see when you try to edit the article. Who can EDIT their way through, faced with that?


'''Encyclopedia Dramatica''' is a parody of internet encylopedias such as [[Wikipedia]], written on a [[wiki]]<ref name="neva">{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/09/17/PKG6BKQQA41.DTL&type=printable |title=Sex and the City |work=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |publisher=[[Hearst Communications]] |date=2006-09-17 |accessdate-2008-05-14 |last=Neva |first=Chonin |pages=p.20 }}</ref><ref name="warrens">{{cite news |title=Privacy |work=Warren's Washington Internet Daily |date=2006-09-12}}</ref>, using apparently comprehensive referencing and linking, but in a satirical and often abusive style. Many of the articles are written in an ironic manner with the express purpose of upsetting those who take it seriously (an activity known on the Internet as [[Troll (Internet)|trolling]]). The content is wide-ranging, covering drama and gossip on other internet forums, Internet subculture, users of web services<ref name="Dee">{{cite web |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/magazine/01WIKIPEDIA-t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=5&oref=slogin |last=Dee |first=Jonathan |title=All the News That's Fit to Print Out |publisher=[[The New York Times]] |work=Magazine |date=2007-07-01 |pages=p. 5, 34}}</ref> and [[Internet meme | online catchphrases]] in a coarse, offensive and frequently obscene manner.<ref>{{cite web| url=http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=459249 |last=Davies |first=Shaun |title=Critics point finger at satirical website |work=National Nine News |date=2008-05-08}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://gawker.com/346385/what-the-hell-are-4chan-ed-something-awful-and-b?mail2=true |last=Douglas |first=Nick |title=What The Hell Are 4chan, ED, Something Awful, And 'b'? |work=[[Gawker.com]] |date=2008-01-18}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=2 Do: Monday, December 26 |publisher=[[Chicago Tribune]] |work=RedEye Edition |date=2005-12-16 |pages=p. 2}}</ref><ref name="northadams"/>

That is a standard wikipedia format for citing articles. Check any FA. MBisanz talk 19:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) I don't know about my esteemed colleagues here, but I'll open the article itself in a tab and read it there, find what I want to edit, then hit ctrl-F in the edit window and find that text. Much simpler for big articles, and it bypasses all of the referencing. I'll also add that I'm a big fan of <ref name="something">, which cuts down a LOT of the clutter. The value of inline citations with URLs (to document WP:V) trumps ease of editing, in my mind. The alternative is to write the paragraph and then ref it. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Conflict!) I dunno, man, if you can't hold onto the thought of the line you've been reading while you scan ahead to find the end of the reference, well, I don't know. But that seems a little strange for someone who insists upon academic standards to not be able to, like, remember stuff. Y'know? I swear to god, I'm not trying to flamebait you, it just seems silly to me. Howa0082 (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, is this what you want articles to look like, Peter? Because, if so, damn. That's crap. Nothing quite breaks up my ease of reading an article than seeing huge nonsense words floating around the text. Those inlines are SEXY. Howa0082 (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No I think you misunderstand. I use endnotes. But I keep the material in there at a minimum. Peter Damian (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it might be easier to put the cite section (not just specific to here, but in general) in one list-format location, and then just drop refnames throughout the article? Would that be against MOS? I'm wondering based on this comment if that might be better for my articles... Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its possible, but most people don't find it generally to be easier. The coding is different. The section on Wikiepedia:Citing sources on In-line cites gives an example of it, but it isn't widely used from what I've seen, likely due to the way you have to do it code wise. Wikipedia:Citing sources/Further considerations#Wikilinks to full references has a fuller example. I wouldn't call it easier myself :P Collectonian (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Linking URLs may be common, but I have been editing Wikipedia since 2003, and it's a comparatively new phenomenon. Indeed, providing citations is only relatively recent. All I am saying is that if I make a major edit to an article, it is reasonable for me to choose the style of citation. Reasonableness is all I am asking. And for the record here is Collectonian's profile which does, as I say, consist mostly of articles about lists of things. This is not meant as disparaging, but a list approach easier accomodates the embedded URL approach than the whole-paragraph one. Peter Damian (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone and everyone know that the Kate tool is only useful if an editor doesn't work with a lot of articles. My actual editing history and my user page far better document my extensive work. So stop looking down your nose at me, particularly considering your history here. Collectonian (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? Peter Damian (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You came on with what seemed like a very aggressive revert, you tell me to 'get used to it' or whatever. I apologise if what I said seemed condescending. It was not meant that way: I meant, my style of editing requires going through large chunks of text at a time, and given I rewrote that paragraph, it was unreasonable of you to revert. Peter Damian (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your last account was given an indef block, as is plainly noted on your user page. And, FYI, your link above is to YOUR profile, not mine, and just shows what a very limited editing scope you have. Just as you had on your old account. You edit almost entirely in academic topics, which this is not within the realm of at all. Your comfort with the ugly style preferred there has no relevance here at all, and thus far, not a single editor has supported your desire.Collectonian (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your "apology" has no sincerity when you continue to insult my editing. And no, your rewriting does not mean you have free reign to redo the entire citation of the style without consensus. Collectonian (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies here is yours. On who supports what, of course, you win on a show of hands. Peter Damian (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must go now. Shall we try to be friends? I haven't reverted your revert, after all.Peter Damian (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I know where mine is, I have it clearly linked from my user page. And while I'm glad you didn't attempt to revert before the page was protected, I'd have to say no, sorry, but after all the insulting on my editing, friends isn't a word I think of while conversing with you at the moment. Collectonian (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well. But there is this joke about Wikipedia and Pokemon and anime and all that real-world stuff, as you surely know. Farewell. Peter Damian (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

I've protected the page because there seems to be edit warring over whether or not we can link to ED. This isn't going to be sorted with ArbCom clarification at Wikipedia:RFArb#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO, so it is likely that the good faith edit warring would continue. The article is in a stable state, so until the clarification comes, there's no urgent need for the page to be open to edit, but if an edit becomes apparent, please use the {{editprotected}} template. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's protected, please no editing. The last thing we need is drama. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vulgar?

I see we've called ED satirical, abusive, ironical, upsetting, trolling, coarse, offensive and obscene. Could we please call it vulgar too? Wikidemo (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collectonian removed the word "vulgar" from the intro before protection occurred. I'd support its re-addition. MBisanz talk 20:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should be calling it anything... we should be citing what reliable sources call it. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No I changed 'vulgar' to 'coarse', which was what was meant. Peter Damian (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't remove it, Peter did. I just put back his rewrite, without the hideous citation redo. I personally suspect the language is still far from being NPOV, even with the sourcing, so suggestions on better phraseology would be good. Collectonian (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly NPOV is it? Martinp23 20:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the negative in tone comments are from 3rd party RS, as in the NY Times calls this site "a piece of shit", we can say "The NY Times called this website a piece of shit". For simple descriptive material like that, as it's sourced, it's fine to call this shit site vulgar. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica&oldid=212435417"