Talk:Urban Dictionary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 5, 2008 Peer review Reviewed
July 20, 2008 Articles for deletion Kept
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Internet culture (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Blogging (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of Blogging WikiProject, an attempt to build better coverage of Blogging on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the Project Page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Linguistics / Applied Linguistics  (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linguistics 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Applied Linguistics Task Force.
 
WikiProject Websites / Computing  (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
 

Content and quality control[edit]

I've just completed an expansion of these sections and where possible have included citations to the Urban Dictionary web site. Several comments in the QC section, including those about the lack of a vetting process for editors, are important enough and stand up to scrutiny of the Dictionary and editorial chat pages, but are difficult to provide simple sources for. I believe they should not be left out, so if anybody has concerns about the lack of sources please bear that in mind and, if necessary, please see how the site works for yourself. Maybe some easily accessible sources will arise at some point....?PårWöet (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC).

I was just at the Urban Dictionary site after not looking there for some time. It does not appear that the public are invited to be the editors any more. Can anyone advise more on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.179.214 (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

My visit to UD today was the first for some considerable time, so please correct me if I am wrong to reply thus:
I didn't see any option to Edit entries. But there is an option tab labeled "Game" that I don't recall seeing before. I clicked on the tab and was given a definition with three options (Add It, Keep Out, I Can't Decide) to do what I recall was solely carried out by editors.
Far from being "uninvited", then, it seems that there's no longer a quasi-formal editing process. What exists now is open access to anybody who clicks on the "Game" tab. With that kind of editing, it seems quite relevant that it's classed as a Game.
Another nail in the coffin of whatever credibility UD previously had.PårWöet (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this entry is really Wikipedia-like[edit]

It seems to be a rule book or guidelines of submission rather than general information about the site and its role in the web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.165.186 (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC) toss my salad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.240.95.101 (talk) 06:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Criticism[edit]

I think there should a section of criticism for this site. Mrmister107 (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Me too. In-Correct (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, there is a bias toward youth that's not really quantifiable. But look at the entries for Neil Young and Bruce Springsteen, for example. Very negative, with big thumbs ups to the negative entries.NjtoTX (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Lead-in, suburb dictionary and trash my own edit[edit]

Yeah, well, I just popped over here to read something, the lead-in struck me as non-English, so I modified and in the course of my enquiries I discovered that SuburbDictionary is a totally, NON-NOTABLE website that comes up on page 2 of Google if you type "suburb + dictionary" and NOWHERE in the first 8 pages if you just type "suburb". Also, there is no Wikipedia entry so this would appear to be blatant WP:NOTPROMOTION, well I am going to recraft the first paragraph and remove all reference to suburb dictionary, it just appears to be a non-moderated computer/user generated wiki that has nothing to do with the appeal or popularity of sites such as Wikipedia, Urban Dictionary, Uncyclopedia Dramatica etc. Captain Screebo (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete "Traffic and users" section[edit]

I propose the deletion of this section, the information contradicts the lead-in and it is just a bunch of internet stats, "as of" this date, is this really relevant or necessary? If there are no objections, I'll go ahead and do it maybe next week. Captain Screebo (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering: are there comparable sections/information on other articles about websites? If it's a style norm in other articles, I'd say keep it. If not, yeah, clear it out. $0.02 DP76764 (Talk) 16:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the $0.02, yes, well I've checked a few website articles and, no, they don't usually carry this info, the only one so far is HabboHotel, which mentions the number of users as of January, 2011. I'll look for some articles about the success or popularity of UD and see if I can integarate this into the article but I think this section is on its way out.Captain Screebo (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think deleting the section is a good idea, as there are other website article that have such sections. While a long listing of "notable users" is certainly not notable, there are other things that could fit under the subheading. Take a look at the Fark and Slashdot articles for ideas on improving the section. WTF? (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for reply, I have stalled my action awaiting comment, I'll go see before acting CaptainScreebo Parley! 21:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Reference to deletion of entries appears to be out of date[edit]

There no longer appears to be any method to delete a word or suggest that it be deleted. I'm holding off changing the WP entry in case I'm missing something. Is there still a way to delete entries? PRL42 (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I wrote to them to ask how get rid of a ridiculous definition, that runs contrary to its own source ("Brooks of Sheffield" from David Copperfield) and was told that the editors themselves will not delete such an entry; the only recourse, they said, is for users to vote it down. Nandt1 (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Template[edit]

I expanded the template, Template:Dictionaries of English, and added it to this article, and a few others. Does this seem useful? should i add pub dates? is it correct in its categorizing?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Dictionary?[edit]

the first paragraph is incorrect. i have been on the site, and it is not a dictionary. Jake1993811 (talk) 06:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a list of definitions for various words; sounds like a dictionary to me. DP76764 (Talk) 06:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a list of definitions for various types of terms, it definitely does indeed look like a dictionary. Oh and BTW, can someone get this article semi protected when it's perfect? Vmkcheat (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Vmkcheat

Dubious claims[edit]

While Urban Dictionary can occasionally be useful for some slang terms, a vast amount of its content seems to be made-up nonsense, often very badly written. Contrary to what this article seems to be suggesting ("all new definitions must be approved by editors", "submissions are regulated by volunteer editors"), in practice there appears to be almost no effective editorial control. 86.160.215.168 (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, much of it is made up or inaccurate or just jokes but, it does still have editorial control on submissions no matter how pathetically weak and ineffective it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.223.127.19 (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, some it is complete rubbish. I have tried in vain to get a fanciful definition deleted and a correct definition substituted. Really frustrating -- they just don't seem to care! Nandt1 (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

IBM's Watson[edit]

Why isn't Watson (computer) mentioned in this article? The engineers used Urban Dictionary as a source to "feed" Watson. 85.246.165.215 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

why doesnt this guy have a page?[edit]

Aaron Peckham, innovator, seems not to have a page. why is that? is there some cease & desist order on wiki not to post a bio of the man? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bergin (talkcontribs) 23:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. His name currently redirects to the Urban Dictionary page, but a separate page is warranted. I will try to look into this Bergin (talkcontribs). Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 14:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Accounts[edit]

The article notes that editors must have Google+ or F***b*** accounts. What it does not say is that this is a recent change. 64.53.191.77 (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)