Talk:Something Awful/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Something Awful. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archived discussions

Talk:Something Awful/Archive 1

Goon Partyline

Someone sould document this explosion of fun that is the Goon party line, im a horrid typer and cant write it up, but someone needs to.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.203.44.83 (talk • contribs)

Utterly unencyclopedic.--Drat (Talk) 16:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Google Censorship

This seems a glaring omission. Google's censorship of SA is a major deal. I don't know much about it (which is why I looked up SA on Wikipedia) so I'm not going to add.

Care to explain a little further?--Drat (Talk) 22:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I did a little interweb search on the topic, and found nothing. Of course, I was using Google... So, the deal is this: I seem to remember that there was a period of time in which a Google search for "Something Awful" did not turn up the SA website, because Google was censoring the search results to that end. I vaguely remember witnessing the phenomenon myself. Can anyone confirm that Google really did this?67.183.165.200 01:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I remember that, but it's not really notable considering it doesn't happen now: [1] --Liface 02:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

1.)Many people use Google. 2.)Most people believe that the search results are not edited for content. 3.) To my knowledge, this is the only site Google ever censored in the USA...... I think those 3 points make it pertinent to this article. 67.183.165.200 02:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

All the same, it would need further proof than "I remember it happening", and that would likely be hard to come by.--Drat (Talk) 02:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I remember it as well. If someone has archive access (I don't), I'm sure they could dig up the threads on the subject. These wouldn't be linkable from Wiki, though. However, a few years ago, it was fairly common knowledge amongst goons.

Actually, here's some supporting evidence: [2]

Note the date of 14 September 2003--Trypsin 23:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a reader comment on a blog is not exactly a reliable source.--Drat (Talk) 03:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

As a forum member, I haven't heard of this particular event and I would think I would have. There is some tension because Google somewhat arbitrarily blocked the site from their Google Ad system for "violating terms of service" which seems to mean that the site contains too much swearing. This stuff is hardly worth including in the article, but it's the only SA-Google tension in recent history. Google is probably better left unmentioned. --65.100.35.112 08:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This certainly did happen, and it was never explained. What is interesting though is SA is still showing up at the very bottom of Googles searches. http://lastgeist.blogspot.com/2006/05/top-10-last-domains.html

That's not the very bottom, it's the 10,000th or so result. Twinxor t 02:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

There were only 87 results, and it was at the end; 10,000 is just a truncator so that the blog didn't have to look through 1,000,000 or so results. Julyo 04:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It is still happening. Surely such a thing is worthy of a mention? It seems very strange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.98.95 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 16 December 2006

Sign your comments. And it works fine for me. Dlong 02:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It is first result when I google it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paul tanstaafl (talk • contribs) 12:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

It's a load of crap. Google doesn't censor SomethingAwful. Lowtax has a persecution complex and blames google for not indexing the site (even though it's because of his poor coding) blames adwords for poor revenue (he just can't run a business) and blames Gmail for blocking emails (his outgoing mail server was flagging their own emails as spam and Gmail was merely processing them). Do NOT listen to anything Lowtax says about Google. He is, in short, an insane delusional idiot. Onsen 20:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Any evidence as to those accusations? Dedwrekka 22:31 22 February 2007

Okay let's clarify here because noone is talking about what the actual problem is with the google indexing. If you do a straight out search for "Something Awful" on Google it will be the number one result. That is not the issue. Example If you do a search for any of Something Awful's content (ie Photoshop Phriday, Flash Tub, etc) you do not get Something Awful returned anywhere in the top set of results, instead getting proxy sites that cache SA. Example. That is what people are talking about when they discuss the sandbox issue (note that noone on SA staff has called it censorship). Hopefully this is useful. --Colorfinger 04:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Colorfinger 07:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources

According to the reliable sources guide, personal websites can act as primary sources in articles that are about themselves. --Xombie 16:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That is about personal websites, such as those of celebrities, etc! This is not a personal website, it is a forum and forums are by default not worthy to be used as references.

Anyway, there's a lot of original research in this article. "His articles usually take a tone of ironic, naive enthusiasm" -- says who? etc. bogdan 15:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

SA isn't just a forum, although your other points are good. I'll make some changes.--Drat (Talk) 10:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've trimmed the personalities section. I also went to work on the features section. The ROM Pit and Movie review sections were redundant, for example, as there is a section that already makes a blanket covering of movie, game, etc. reviews. I threw in a few fact tags for good measure. I've got some links to cite for the Hurricane Katrina donation controversy, I'll work on those tomorrow maybe, but here they are for others to cite if they want to:

--Drat (Talk) 12:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

SA does count as a personal website or blog. This article is primarily about the front page, not the forums. As the rule states, "Self-published sources... may be used only as sources of information on themselves, and only in articles about them." The rule uses Stormfront as an example, it does not only apply to information on particular figures or small websites. I am removing the tag. --Xombie 21:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the personality analyses again. The links given do not work (I'm guessing I need a forum account, and I'm not about to shell out for one), and even then, forum posts are not typically not WP:RS.--Drat (Talk) 04:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"still writing it" is flimsy rationale for deletion. Parsons' WW II interest isn't a matter of "analysis": it's a cold, hard fact that's been in evidence throughout his Something Awful career, and his decision to write fact-based articles is an important difference between him and the site's other writers. Stilgar135 05:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've restored it.--Drat (Talk) 06:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This article isn't about the forum and uses the site itself as reference, not the forum posts. Removing tag per WP:RS. --Xombie 19:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

SA and Wikipedia

[3] :) Will (message me!) 16:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Although it didn't happen to me - the image loaded fine - SA uses (or has used) offsite linking images that are... unpleasant. At least there was the last time it happened to me, but that was two or three years ago. It's usually best to link to the page that shows the image. Wikipedia is also parodied in Tub Bites! 1, first a few scenes in, and then in the last scene.--Drat (Talk) 19:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The nastiness occurs when you "leech" an image on another site by displaying the image inline. Twinxor t 08:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Funny, was looking for LMoM

Followed a redirect here (Terrible Secret of Space) and expected to get to the song by Laziest Men on Mars. BigNate37_T·C 04:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hardly surprising. TSOS was inspired by SA, and the song alone doesn't really warrant an article.--Drat (Talk) 05:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

SPEWS

In two Front Page News updates (August 3 and 7), Zack Parsons informed readers of the blackout, warned network administrators against using SPEWS, and outlined the (fictitious) origins of SPEWS and its founders.

Now, as I am writing this... its July 25th... so how come this article is talking about front page updates that havent even appeared yet... Are they from August of a past year? Would be nice if someone clarified, as I cant check SA's news archive, they make my web browser crash for some reason. Ghilz 16:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It was either '05 or '04. I can't remember which. --Liface 16:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Same here. Browser doesn't like SA archives. Strange.--Drat (Talk) 03:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Author here. It's contextual, the year is clearly stated within the first 5 words of the opening sentence "On July 20, 2003, the spam filtering..." I'm not going to take the time to add the cites or year to the part you couldn't read well, but I'm not going to go all Wiki crazy and undo it if someone else does. --CliffYablonski (CliffYablonski) 16 Feb 2007

Spoiler Tags

Are spoiler tags really needed around the famed ICQ prank? - Abstract Idiot (talk · contribs)

SA references in other media

I came to this article today looking for some kind of master reference to other media, particularly games, that have referenced Something Awful, but there is no such information. I don't know if this kind of thing is worthy of the article, but here's what I recall so far:

In The Elder Scrolls 3: Morrowind, there's a powerful weapon called the Banhammer, which is a reference to Lowtax's mythical weapon of forum discipline. The character that had the banhammer was had a name derived from Lowtax as well.
Lowtax's face was featured in a flight-sim game. I think it was in the IL-2 series.
There are a few references in the Grand Theft Auto games. I recall a billboard and there's a criminal ranking just after "goon" called "SA Goon" in GTA: Vice City.
Ropekid, in particular, included some SA references in the games he worked on, like Icewind Dale II. This is mentioned in the Lowtax article.

There's also some more SA game references mentioned here [4] that I don't specifically recall.

So, would such a list be worthy of inclusion? Can someone tell me which flight sim it is that features Lowtax as a pilot?

You need reliable sources.--Drat (Talk) 06:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

High Alexa rank?

Checking SA on alexa (after noting 4chan's high rank, it occured to me that mention of the rank of 1317 might be an idea [5]. What do others think, and where should the rank be inserted? LinaMishima 10:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Intro paragraph or something. --Liface 23:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody cares about Alexa. GeeCee 00:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I would generally agree there, Alexa ranks are notoriously wrong. However given that it has a large enough userbase so as to say that ranks above 100,000 are significant, I would say that a rank above 3000 is clearly a very major achievement! Something awful deserves to have this acknowledged, in my opinion. LinaMishima 00:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

GRANDMA or GRANDMOTHER?

In the "Terrible Secret of Space" section, it states that the robot talked about pushing "GRANDMA" down the stairs. I read the article (as linked) and found this:

Lowtax - PAK CHOOIE ANSWER: ITEMS PUSHED - GRANDMOTHER TARGET - STAIRS IT WAS THAT I DID PAK CHOOIE

As far as I know it was only when Lowtax wasn't assuming the role of the robot that he referred to her as "grandma". However, when I changed it to "GRANDMOTHER" it was immediately reverted.

Is there something I'm missing? --RKingdom 22:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a bad call on my behalf - the early parts of the logs (without the robots speaking) use grandma, whereas the robots use grandmother. It never occured to me that lowtax might use different terms to make the switch seem more real. The line in the article refers to the robots talking, and so you're right. I wonder if there are other sources out there to add to this section, to indicate the meme's relative importance?

Thank you for taking this to the talk page rather than simply changing, and I'm sorry for not being more complete in my checking. LinaMishima 22:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Plagarism of Neal Stephenson

The September 3, 2006 article by "Maxnmona" contains on obviously plagarised synopsis of "Snow Crash" by Neal Stephenson. The nature of the article contains no room for it, as the whole point of it is for the author to criticise and "rewrite" parts of a certain book. I contacted "Maxnmona" about it and he replied "ur ultra-gay 2 the max" and then "ur supa-dupa gay reaching eye-poppin levels". Below is the portion I have discussed. How can they complain of plagarism when they commit the same?

Lord of the Rings

Old Plot: A group of heroes works seperately to unmake a ring of ultimate power and defeat its evil maker.

Better Plot: A samurai sword wielding pizza delivery man teams up with a young stakeboarding chick to stop a madman from using the internet to spread an ancient Babylonian spell that turns everyone into Pentecostals. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.51.89.132 (talk • contribs) .

Um, it's a joke. An obscure joke, maybe, but certainly a joke. I mean last I heard SA is a humor site. --waffle iron ^talk 05:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

-blah-::Oh ok, so they just have free rein to claim to be bettering something (Yeah usually in a funny way) with their own work, but instead just use an authors work, and no problem! I forgot that plagarism is alright when it's on a well known website. What does it matter if it's a humor website, Ebaums is a humor website, but SA and it's panties get in a bunch when people from Ebaums use images hosted by SA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.51.89.132 (talk • contribs) .

The point of the article was that he wasn't making classic literature any better in his suggestions. To approach it as serious and make wild allegations makes you look silly. --waffle iron ^talk 05:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh yeah, it's parody. The readership would get the reference, laugh, and move on. Ebaum doesn't even bother with parody. He rebrands the images and then throws ads over them. They're not comparable.24.225.83.41 13:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"wild allegations"? It's on a publicly viewable page. How am I making a wild allegation? That suggests that I am making a group of claims that are not possible to investigate, and it is plain to see. http://www.somethingawful.com/index.php?a=4065

Calling it plagiarism on the page is also original research. Besides, given that the kind of demographic that SA attracts, Maxnmona likely assumed they'd get the reference.--Drat (Talk) 08:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

My Tank is Fight

The Wikipedia entry for "My Tank is Fight" redirects here, yet it is not mentioned anywhere in this article. Are we going to create a new section this article on it, or create a new article (like there is with Maddox's book)? W3bbo 23:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just created a stub article on My Tank is Fight, feel free to finish it off W3bbo 23:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The book has not been released yet, and there are no professional reviews. Wikipedia isn't an advertising service. There's usually precedent for creating articles on items to come out if there is independant verifiable and reliable sources regarding it. In the literary world Zack's not (yet) known.--Drat (Talk) 15:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

However, that's not a good reason for taking it out of the main SA article. Having a book published by a legitimate publishing house is certainly noteworthy within the context of the website, especially because this is a fairly unique case: it's a hard-to-categorize book that is being published solely because of the Something Awful reputation. It's comparable to The Alphabet of Manliness, Real Ultimate Power and I Hope they Serve Beer in Hell. the first has its own page; the second are prominently mentioned on their creator's pages. With that in mind, MTIF deserves at least a mention here. Stilgar135 22:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Book is out, and has been for some time. Could use an article already, as it is quite informative.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.178.69.86 (talk • contribs)

There was an article, but it was deleted as there were no reliable, independent sources to show why it was notable.--Drat (Talk) 05:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia appeared in Awful Link

In 19th of September, there are six articles from Wikipedia that appeared in Awful link of the day. Those are Knuckles (from Sonic the Hedghog), Echidna, The internet, Internal Combustion Engine, William Shakespear (Whats wrong with William Shakespear? - Han) and Western Culture. 17:40, 19 September 2006, hanchi.

The joke was that the Knucles article is longer than any of those other, more noteworthy, subjects. You should probably stick to Maddox if you need jokes like these explained to you. Ghost of starman 21:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh okey. I couldnt understand the joke actually, thought it was another rant of Wikipedia or something.hanchi 27 Sept 2006.

P-P-P-Powerbook

Surprised that there is no mention of this. I'd write it myself but I'm too high on crack. Dragons.Dragons. Ginger FlllLOOP!

That was a forums based phenomenon with no link to the front page.

Sources

I put together some sources on the forums page before it was merged. Since I'm lazy, I'll just copy-paste my message here:

All your Base: [6] [7]

Another photoshop fas [8]

Lawsuit from Apple [9]

General article about internet forums mentions it [10]

Hurricane Katrina issue [11][12][13] [14][15][16]

On Attack of the Show (the video itself)[17][18]

SPEWS issue [19]

EBaum's conflict [20] (I know, not the best source, but the best I could find)

Uwe Boll [21]

Sony's viral marketing scam [22]

There's also some stuff about the guy who posted there and committed a murder-suicide that appeared in a national newspaper, but I can't find it. The main article definitely needs cleanup though. --Wafulz 01:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

One Time Registration

"Something Awful is particularly well-known for its forums, which have the unique feature of requiring a one-time registration fee." This feature is definitely not unique, for example, metafilter also requires a one time registration fee. Changing to "Something Awful is particularly well-known for its forums, which require a one-time registration fee."Kennedyyyyy 23:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, though this could've been summed up in an edit summary. --Wafulz 23:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of Speedy tag

The reason I reverted the speedy tag was that the wording made it clear it was in bad faith. No proper criteria was specified.--Drat (Talk) 11:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there's really no question that this article doesn't qualify for speedy deletion. Twinxor t 13:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

SA wikipedia parody

This is *so* amazingly spot-on: http://www.somethingawful.com/index.php?a=4288 69.72.41.131 06:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and innaccurate statements

The innacurate statement is about Second Life. SL is not technically a video game. It's more akin to 3d VRML chats such as "Blaxxun" or "Onlive! Traveler". It just has a slightly different business model and network topography but is realitively the same concept.

Second, NPOV issue regarding furries. The way it is written implies that furries automatically equate to the obscene. I have seen obscene stuff come from furries in SL. However, I have seen far more obscene stuff come from non-furries in SL. Infact, some of the more obscene stuff I've seen has come from what are known as "Goons" which are composed of certain members from the Something Awful forums. They have a habbit of being extremely obscene in newbie welcome areas. I am not pointing fingers at any individual members, nor at "goons" in general. Merely remarking that certain "goons" have been known to be far worse than the worst stuff I've ever seen come out of furries.

For reffernce, I am not a furry and have no interest in the furry fandom. I am however concerned about the lack of NPOV in this article regarding them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.254.163.104 (talk) 05:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Terrible Secret of Space redirects here with no info.

A search for the Pusher Robot and another search for "Terrible Secret of Space" both redirect here, but all reference to this meme started by SA has been removed from this page.

Either the material should be restored or the redirection links related to this material should be removed. 65.5.3.112 17:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

I tagged the article with original research because there were plenty of lines making claims which were not sourced or backed up by a secondary source. If you can find good secondary sources which provide similar analysis then cite them. Otherwise the lines I tagged are indeed original research, they are provide analysis and original research about the topic. --Quirex 18:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

"Different" (and I say that with a grain of salt) people keep adding the following:

Through the years, there has often been a certain level of criticism relating to the running of the forums. The criticism generally arises out of perceived injustices (often associated with bans), though it is generally not talked about on the forums due to a fear of reprisal. Recently, a small independent set of forums has arisen; calling themselves the Something Awful Sycophant Squad (SASS), they aim to complement the Something Awful Forums as a place to openly criticize and provide feedback on them.

Whether those adding this into the article will admit it or not, this is just a thinly-veiled rant about the moderation on Something Awful. It contains no neutral third-party references, is loaded with weasel words, it is basically advocacy for people who are disgruntled about the forums, and is almost advertising for this website. --Wafulz 18:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware that the sites are primary references, but currently they're the only real sources of criticism about Something Awful. Drfarkio 19:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Then it shouldn't be included at all. JuJube 19:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to get secondary references on sites dedicated to criticism, but given that numerous people have taken the time to create and maintain blogs and forums about something awful, it seems noteworthy to mention that a) criticisms exist and b) we can point to instances of it -Oxxiox 20:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not logical, because we could just mention things like "lots of people think it's hilarious" (point to examples in a blog), "lots of people think it's the greatest site ever" (point to blog examples), and "there are instances where people think it is a highly intellectual forum" (again, point to some forum existing discussing the intelligence). Unless we can find a neutral third party source that addresses the criticisms (or at least mentions the sites in question), then we can't include it. I could just as easily round up several forum members and create a blogging ring praising the forums, and this would be essentially the same. If no neutral third party references are found, then we are soap-boxing and including original research. --Wafulz 21:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it comical that a nearly academic standard of referencing is trying to be applied to an online community. Where else are you going to find information about an online social community than, say, online? Your favorite peer-reviewed anthropology journal? Unlikely. A publication of reputable opinion editorial? Unlikely. Blogs, forums, personal websites? Bingo. If you want to insist that this article is totally verifiable by sources that aren't of a highly internet-oriented nature, you might as well blank the page and replace with "SomethingAwful.com is a website on the internet. (citation needed)" Otherwise I think you're just gaming policy to support a ridiculous point of view. Incidentally, I have no interest in this content dispute or any of the bickering POVs trying to get their two cents included/excluded, it just struck me as comical how you are trying to apply the verifiability principle. -- mattb @ 2007-02-15T22:10Z

Please refer to WP:RS. You'll see a reliable source is something that has gone through an editorial process. --Wafulz 22:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Please bother to read what I just said. I've been around plenty long enough to know what the reliable sources principle entails and where it fails to work. I put the challenge to you to provide a handful of specific sources that you would consider "reliable" for the purposes of this article. If you can provide a reasonable list of such items, I redact my statements. Otherwise I'd encourage you to argue on point rather than using your interpretation of Wikipedia principles as a bludgeoning stick. -- mattb @ 2007-02-16T00:05Z

Talk:Something_Awful#Sources_2 has some good examples - news websites, content hosted by reliable sources, a television station. Generally, stuff that at least has some form of editorial oversight or approval process. In this case, all we've been provided with are a forum and some blogspot links. Also, try to stay civil. --Wafulz 00:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Wafulz, if you get your way, I certainly hope that you'll personally stub SA's article for being grossly improperly sourced. -Oxxiox 00:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't stub it, but I'd certainly take the article down to about half its current size. This isn't about "getting my way", it's about making sure everything in the article is properly sourced. The vast majority of articles about the internet are absolutely horrid for the very reason that much of their content is made up of original research and poorly sourced material. --Wafulz 00:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely encourage you to try and do so. -Oxxiox 00:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

So has this been resolved at all? At best this seems like an advertisement and soapboxing by a random forum. I don't see any indication that they are to be noted any more than a blogger saying "SA SUCKS!" --Wafulz 01:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What site are you guys referring to? I dont even know what "SASS" is Onsen 22:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

WAFULZ, fucking stop licking Lowtax's asshole and be objective instead of trying to get criticism delted. (Wafulz is a goon)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.205.226 (talk • contribs)

No personal attacks please. There is no point in including the website just because it exists. It's group of people who hate the website with absolutely no outside coverage or credibility. Why should they have coverage here? It's very clear that nobody has given them coverage anywhere else- Wikipedia is never the first to give something coverage? --Wafulz 03:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean coverage? A lot of the info on Lowtax's and SA's pages is not New York Times front page news, but just common knowledge and integral parts of Lowtax's identiy.

For instance:

Origin of Lowtax pseudonym
Awful Video
City Name Sports Team
ARC
Moofwear
Personal life
SA Games forum guilds and guild tags

None of those items have recieved "coverage" outside of SA and the SA forums. I think SASS is highly relevant to both the Lowtax article and the SA article because its a community with over 700 members dedicated to hating SA and Lowtax and it has recieved just as much coverage as the info in the above list. SASS recieved SA coverage because the URL was posted in the OP of a thread in BYOB that was sticky for several days. --Keep It Real 22:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

See the section below regarding condensing the article and removing unsourced material. As for the forums not getting coverage- other than maybe its own members and some of the people on SA, no reliable mainstress press (Internet or otherwise) has mentioned them. Being mentioned and mocked on a forum does not constitute coverage. "Common" knowledge has to be sourced too.

--Wafulz 23:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well removing SASS from the article because it hasn't recieved coverage would be inconsistent; most of the info in the article hasn't recieved coverage. Either remove it all or keep it all...

--Keep It Real 03:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If you'd take a look below, you'll notice that's exactly what I'm trying to do. --Wafulz 05:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, well almost everything on both articles is "dubious" then, so I'm going to remove the dubious tag until a decision is made to remove everything or keep it all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keep It Real (talk • contribs) 05:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

We're already got the "original research" and "needs good sources" tag, which covers the entire article. That statement on its own is still dubious because the group has received zero recognition from anyone, anywhere. If an independent reliable source doesn't mention their activities, then the comment should be removed entirely. --Wafulz 05:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The exact same thing can be said about half the statements on the page.

Actually those things require citations or removal. What we have here is a citation of dubious merit seeing as the source is an online forum that only serves to disparage its subject. --Wafulz 21:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

What's the difference? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keep It Real (talk • contribs) 21:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Well namely, things that are likely to be true need citations (needs a citation). Things that are noticed from a personal point of view are original research (needs removal). Claims that are made with obviously non-neutral and non-credible sources are dubious at best. The editor who removed the statement actually made a pretty good point in that SASS doesn't meet Wikipedia:External links at all. Unless it can be proven that the site has some sort of independent non-trivial coverage (ie it is used as a reference to the claim that sites that criticize SA exist and are worth noting), it will be removed. Seeing as it's been almost a month since the link was first added, it's not likely we'll find such coverage. It should really be removed at this point. --Wafulz 23:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Who is making biased claims? Its true that some sites criticize SA. That anti SA sites exist is a lot more notable than things like Moofwear and LLJK. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keep It Real (talk • contribs) 23:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

It's also true that 80,000+ people enjoy the forums, and thousands of blogs have made links praising the forums, and lots of people think the forums are funny. But we don't include them because they have received no external coverage. Moofwear and LLJK should also be removed since they have no external coverage. And regarding external link guidelines, it says to specfically remove links to forums that are not the subject of the article. --Wafulz 19:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Getting criticism "delted"? Sounds kinky. JuJube 04:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Condensing the article

Right now the article is marred by OR and sourcing tags. I think a few things ought to be changed or removed from the article:

List of fictional characters. Jeff K got a parody on Maddox, and that's about all the attention that they've received. This section should probably be removed, or put into the "features" area and given one sentence.
List of writers. We don't need a list of the SA staff. Maybe mention Thorpe somewhere in the article for appearing as the rep for the site on Attack of the Show.
List of features. Condense this. Something like "The site hosts humour material including photoshops, parodies, stories, reviews, and flash animations". We don't need an in-depth description of every facet of the site.
Subculture. Rename this and try to make it more relevant. We don't need five paragraphs describing Doom House when two or three sentences can do the job.
Controveries. Rename it- not everything is a controversy. The three subjects under it barely fit together under the umbrella term.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Any other thoughts? --Wafulz 01:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds ok, I suggest stubbing first by removing all the lines which are unsourced and then work from there. --Quirex 01:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with stubbing is a lot of the material on the article is backed by sources provided here on the talk page, only nobody has cited them yet. We'd just be creating more work for ourselves. If I get a chance, I might source the stuff on the weekend. --Wafulz 01:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Author of SPEWS part here. On the comments about "Controversies" section, I have to disagree, they are all controversies (def: "a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention"). They all continued over at least a month, they were all public. As far as cites, I need ot go fix them but frankly I've never taken the time to get the hang of cite tags. --CliffYablonski

I think they could be replaced with more specific terms like "SPEWS block" or "eBaum's Conflict". --Wafulz 18:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I was about to try rearranging the "Modern SA" section when I saw this, so I'll hold off. My plan was to change the section to 1. Features, then 2. Characters, then 3. Writers, subdivided into Current and Former Writers. I agree that it can be condensed, but I don't think it needs to be shortened as much as you suggest, which sounds like the entire section would end up as "The site has several different features by various writers."

What I think should be done: cut out the Fictional Characters section and incorporate those descriptions into the descriptions of their associated features. Trim the Features section down to the more notable ones, which in my opinion would mean maintaining (shortened)descriptions for Yablonski Hates You, Weekend Web, Your Band Sucks, Legal Threats, Second Life Safari, Fashion SWAT, Comedy Goldmine, Truth Media, and Jeff K, or something like that--basically, the features that are most likely to have gained attention outside of the site (and I may be wrong about what those are). Then include a line like "Other features include Photoshop Phriday, the Flash Tub, the Art of Warcraft, and reviews of films, games, albums and other media."

As for the writers section, I agree that we don't need a long list of everyone who's ever written for the site, but I think a list of the most prolific or infamous contributors, along with a brief description of their contributions, is appropriate. It would also make sense to change "Writers" to "Contributors."Propaniac 16:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I edited the Modern SA section as I thought was logical, but saved it to User:Propaniac/Sandbox for the moment instead of saving it to the SA page. Propaniac 20:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

While you're editting this section, I think it should be noted that almost every article listed under "Regular Features" are in fact not regular features. For example, it's been almost two years since there was a Cliff Yablonski update, and a third year since there were actually Yablonski updates at a regular interval (that having been every Monday, then every second Monday, then never); I can't even find Cliff Y since the site has been redesigned. "Jeff K" has not been updated in an even longer period (thank God), "legal threats" was never regular because there have only ever been 4 or 5 articles, and all the rest are simply not regular though they may still be current. I don't even see that it is neccessary to have a list of featured articles, because there are well over twenty and the website is there if people want to see what content SA has. CliffYablonski Feb 27 2006

I implemented the changes I was suggesting to the section on February 23. I see your point that the "regular features" aren't really "regular", but I think it'd be more appropriate to rename the list than to remove the list of features altogether. The content is the heart of the site, and the features I highlighted were the ones that I thought best summarized how and why the site became notable enough for an encyclopedia entry in the first place. To not include some detail on the site's features sounds, to me, analogous to editing the Elvis Presley page so that his entire music career is replaced with "Presley released several popular albums." And I think it misses the point to say that people can just go to the site if they want to see its content. By Wikipedia policy, EVERYTHING in every entry is supposed to be readily available from other sources. Propaniac 18:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess what I'm trying to say is that at the very least, the section title should be changed. Perhaps "Defining Features" or "Notable Features." The problem is best put in your words, though, that it is a list that YOU think makes the site worthy of an encyclopedia entry, but encyclopediae are not about what an individual thinks. I think Jeff K was stupid and funny as a one-time deal but mind-numbingly idiotic and not funny regularly, but it is a signature feature. Maybe that's a good new section heading, "Signature Features." In that case (signatures) Cliff, Jeff, Your Band, Weekend Web, Photoshop Phriday, Pranks, and State Og should be included, but not something like Fashion SWAT because it is not regular, and doesn't drive traffic to the site in the way that any of the other features do/did. As for not including any and an Elvis parallel, if you navigate to the Elvis Presley article and click on "discography," then you will see that, in fact, his discography is not included in the article. A list of features and authors can go either way in my mind, a complete directory or not at all, though I do no discount the value of a partial list. Also, a good portion of these features have been made inaccesssible or deleted since Feb 8 with the redesign.CliffYablonski March 1 2007

I'm simply trying to follow Wikipedia guidelines as I understand them; I won't apologize for stating my opinion as my opinion, or making changes based on my opinion after putting them forth here for a couple days beforehand to see if anyone would object. All anyone can offer is what they themselves think, and my impression is that the purpose of this Talk page is largely to discuss this kind of disagreement and try to reach a consensus about what an encyclopedia entry should contain. Since nobody seemed to object to what I proposed, I went ahead and made the changes. As I've said before, I don't have a problem if people disagree about what features should be described and change the entry to reflect that, since I don't follow the front page as regularly as a lot of other people. And I think it does make sense to change the heading of the section; all of the headings you suggested sound fine to me.

The Elvis page doesn't include a discography because it's so huge that it's on separate pages, but my point was that if someone or something is notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia, the encyclopedia should give some priority to explaining what that person or thing actually did that gave rise to its notability, and the SA features are central to that. I don't think a full listing for the sake of having a full listing is the right way to go; the former version of the section was really tedious at points, because it dutifully slogged through descriptions of fairly self-explanatory stuff like Photoshop Phriday. I do think it could be cut down further, as could the rest of the article; I just don't want to see it dwindle to no detail at all, especially on the reasoning that "people can go to the site if they want to know about the content."

Does anyone else have an opinion they'd like to interject about this?

By the way, in reference to a lot of the features not being accessible, I just checked the front page and found that under each of the Directory listings on the top right, there's now a "More" button that leads to the other archived content. I don't think that was there earlier because I couldn't find the old sections, either. Propaniac 20:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of the material in this article does not meet Wikipedia:External links. Unless it can be proven that the material has some sort of independent non-trivial coverage, it will be removed shortly.--Keep It Real 01:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This is out of context. A lot of the squabbling over notability of features can be solved very easily: if it's got external coverage, it's notable. If not, it isn't. We could easily summarize the "regular features" into just a paragraph saying the site deals with humour and satire and has flash and funny images and the like. We don't need an excruciating amount of detail, or even a list of all the features- the point of the article is to give a broad overview of the general content of the site. It's the same case with pretty much any other well-written article. --Wafulz 03:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

True, content must follow Attribution policy and reliable sources guideline.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Keep It Real (talk • contribs)

new forum picture?

I'm a SA forum lurker, and I've noticed the picture of the forums is a bit outdated, as there have been a few revisions. IIRC, the FYAD board has been deleted, and replaced with BYOB. it's just a minor thing, and since I barely know wikicode, I don't think I"d be able to do it myself. --199.126.227.65 02:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

With regards to forum names and order/presentation, the public view of the forums changes on a not-infrequent basis. The purpose behind the image is basically "this is a general idea of what the forums currently look like." Unless the forums page undergoes a full revamp (like the front page did), the current picture should be fine as is. --Wafulz 05:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

What the article would like using reliable references and proper sourcing

This is what the article would look like right now if you removed all the primary sourcing and all the unsourced lines. Surely there are more references but I think we should start at the reliable core of the article and then add to it. I'm proposing we replace the article with this or a modified version of it with some of the other reliable sources found. --Quirex 17:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree fully. Lets make it happen like a sail boat captain. --Mr Real cp3 21:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I like it. Two things though:

Change "Contributors" to "Content" and mention the general content of the site in one or two sentences. We can finish the section off by having what is currently in the "Contributors" section
I think the forum description is fine as it is, though I more or less wrote it, so I have obvious bias. I do like how you merged it and pranks together- it has a good flow.

Other than that, it looks good. --Wafulz 22:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok did it. I guess now we need the further integration of that big list of references. --Quirex 23:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I added some more references from that list. I think only the Sony one needs to be added. --Quirex 23:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Tax evasion

What was the result of the case? It says "Satisfaction" or "Warrant Vacated", but I don't speak legalese. --Wafulz 17:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The tax evasion thing, as near as I can tell, was Thurston County asking Lowtax to pay his back taxes, while being giant pricks about it. When the taxes were all paid, the warrant was "satisfied," and a year later it fell off the records as "vacated," meaning it should no longer appear in his criminal history. The record in their online database would therefore appear to be an anomaly, however since it involves a business and since its a crime committed by that business, they may have special rules governing the retention of those records. Cumulus Clouds 08:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's fallen off as vacated, then why is it still here? This doesn't sound like a worthwhile event at all. --Wafulz 14:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A criminal offense was committed by the company (and owner) that the article is based on, which would make it noteworthy enough to mention among the other past controversies surrounding SomethingAwful. 128.208.191.123 03:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This 'controversy' is non-notable, and hardly a controversy. As such I have removed it. GeeCee 16:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A legal action against a corporate entity has qualified many times as "notable" in other cases and with other companies, the only exception here is that Lowtax has repeatedly insisted that his forum users "fix" his wikipedia article by removing any negative material. Anybody suspected of editing the article under this policy will find their edits quickly reverted. Cumulus Clouds 00:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this "tax evasion" basically the coroporate equivalent of a parking ticket or a late fee? Also, where are you getting the idea that Kyanka is mandating these changes? --Wafulz 00:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No, though I'm sure Kyanka certainly wants people to see it that way. He keeps saying it was an accountant's error, but he also says he doesn't retain anyone on his staff other than his coder. I also doubt that any accountant would be stupid enough to think you didn't have to pay taxes on a business' income for that fiscal year if they simply moved out of state. Since we don't have evidence to the contrary, there's no way to verify his story, though it is kept there to maintain NPOV until some other evidence surfaces. Kyanka has previously asked his users to edit his article because he felt Something Awful was being under represented (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2402054#post325135244), and he blames the article's content on its editors, who he feels are all permabanned users of his site (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2402054&perpage=40&pagenumber=2#post325135807). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cumulus Clouds (talk • contribs) 04:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Yeah but it's a bit of a stretch to suggest he wants people to remove any and all negative content. Anyway, I guess I'll leave the tax bit alone. --Wafulz 04:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Actor Facts

The 'Spector' behind those randomly generated facts College Student’s Humor Website Reaches 50 Millionth Visit Both mention something awful but don't mention chuck norris facts (just vin deisel). --Quirex 17:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)