Talk:Fark/Archive 2

message: The concept of Fark and SA being arch-rivals is stupid.  Rivals compete with one another.  Some users on both sites like to bitch about the other, but there's no real competition save for the one Photoshop contest years ago.  I think that section should be eliminated or substantially edited.  Thoughts?
*It's part of the lore and charm of Fark. It's another Fark inside joke. And it seems like to me, to understand Fark, you have to understand the inside jokes. Besides it's an interesting addition to the Wiki article. -->Chemical Halo 22:15, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
*I think most people on Something Awful would laugh if you compared Fark to SA. While SA comes up with original material constantly, Fark seems to reuse the same jokes over and over and over and over and over and over. Most of them appear to have originated from SA 3 years ago too. Trampled 13:27, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something Awful 

message: Fark is quite notable, and deserves its own cliches section -- besides, these things are all a reflection of the culture in which they were conceived. Wikipedia is an important medium for the preservation of these subtle aspects of culture which would otherwise be lost to the ages.
*Suggestions:
** Flesh out Cliche Link
** Create seperate link about Fark Tags, the History of Tags, and the Meanings -- also representative use.
** Get permission from several fark photoshoppers to include representative samples of high quality photoshopping from the site (or better yet, get them to upload it themselves)
EggplantWizard 20:10, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You could always link to any greenlit PS thread.  They're always accessable. --GaidinBDJ July 9, 2005 18:10 (UTC)
Shouldn't the various cliches listed in this section be moved to the Fark.com_clich%C3%A9s page? After all, there are so many that just listing a few select ones doesn't do justice to the rest. --Safety 21:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Let's get some perspective. First, Fark is not "quite notable." It is a small, infotainment-based Web community temporarily enjoying cult popularity. Second, they aren't cliches; they are inside jokes. Third, Wikipedia should not document ephemera like the history of Fark tags or inside jokes; Fark.com cliches should be merged into this article and greatly reduced. Who is going to read that crap three years from now when Drew has had a near-death experience and converted to Islam and Fark has been sold to Viacom? Just say that Fark is a popular Web community and include some representative headline jokes and photoshop images. Jeez, this fanboy zeal is stupefying. --Tysto 16:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, first: Fark is quite notable. It's in the top 1200 most popular sites on the web which is quite an accomplishment. You would have to stretch the definition of "small" quite a bit in order to fit fark into it. I agree with you though; fark inside jokes should not have a separate article here. It should be merged in with this article and only the notable elements kept. Wikipedia shouldn't be used to document inside jokes, most of which only total farkers would understand. A reader that has never seen fark before should be able to understand this article and not get bogged down in peculiarities of the site that would take quite some time to get acquainted with. Having said that, it's important that the 'inside joke' phenomenon is documented because it is a big part of fark's appeal. --BWD 17:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What would you say of a book, magazine, or pop band that was, at its height, about the 1000th most popular of its time? Semi-notable at best and barely deserving of a WP article at all.  And my definition of "small"? How about staff size? Annual revenue? Percentage of the population of the English-speaking world that has heard of it? By non-Internet measures, Fark is about as notable as a coffee shop in a medium-size city. How notable is Hitch, the 10th top-grossing film of 2005? Or South Beach Diet, the 100th top-selling book of 2005?. Notable enough for an article, but not by a lot. Also I would argue that the inside jokes are virtually Fark's only appeal. They are largely what makes it notable at all (we can get news links and boobies anywhere) and should therefore dominate this article, not have their own article. I like Fark; I just don't see how it's worthy of the current level of detail and number of related articles. --Tysto 05:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're agreeing that this shouldn't be a separate entry. However, we're arguing over the definition of popular, which I don't think is very constructive or pertinent to the discussion. Nevertheless, you can't compare websites to newspapers or books, because what separates #1000 and #500 is only a marginal number of hits. Anyway, it's widely accepted that any site in the top 1000 is considered popular (fark.com was ranked 890ish for the past week). Another definition of notability is how many times it has been mentioned in the press. I think every major news organization has run a story on fark.com at one point. --BWD 13:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Cliches Link -- should be segregated 

message: The Farkisms section is very unwieldy and is in danger of becoming way too large. As per my request on the separate farkisms article, it needs to be completely eliminated and discussed as a phenomenon only. This list can grow indefinitely and it violates wikipedia's policies. I quote from Wikipedia's policies:
:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles are not: Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms or persons.
The Farkisms list is nothing more than a list of random information that does not help the reader understand Fark. A section on the phenomenon would be much more helpful. --BWD 19:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok all, Something said today in one fark thread is not really a cliche yet. It may seem that way on Fark becuase of it's time warp and hallucanatory effects, but not to the rest of the world. Thus, I've removed the "Excellent, Bring it (ever $SOMETHING) THEN SHUT UP" entry because the forum thread holding it's first use is (to quote the entry) "first used on thread 'Magnitude 7.7 earthquake off the coast of Indonesia' " and the date listed was for tomorrow. Before declaring something a cliche, give it time to actually become a cliche first. badmonkey 23:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree.  Several times I've referred to this exact page to try to understand a Farkism or it's origin.  This information could certainly be captured somewhere on Fark.com instead, but it is useful reference material.  Not the most academic of subjects, but neither is drinking games. Ratbert42 02:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Farkisms 

message: I think it's time to do away with the long list of farkisms as per WP:NOT. I can help work on a more general farkisms section. --BWD 08:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally am okay with that.  I seriously question how useful most of that stuff is except to people who familiar with it anyway (i.e. they're Fark regulars) and that's where WP:NOT comes into play. --W.marsh 16:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I tried some of the listed filters on the scratchpad, and they didn't seem to work. Specifically, "hitler" and "The terrorists have already won". Are these real? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.248.41.239 (talk • contribs) 
: Good catch. The filters are modified from time to time, so the entries may have been real at one point, but in any case I just did my own scratchpad test, and confirmed that several phrases in the list are no longer filtered. I've removed them. Kickaha Ota 17:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filter table accuracy 

message: Just a heads up that I think I noticed a new filter/substitution. I had a long set of /comments at the end of my post, and any ones with more then 4 /'s got cropped down to two /'s. I have a screen shot of my post submitted correctly and the result if verification is needed.
69.160.193.22 05:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, the filters now also apply to headlines. That wasn't the case until a few months ago when headlines just hit the TF mainpage as-is. Back then, the admins usually just edited the offensive part out manually. --Seed 2.0 22:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible new filter? 

message: Is there really any need for a separate Totalfark.com article here?  I've suggested that that article be merged into this one, and then redirected to here. I don't see that it's notable on its own, and I highly doubt there are any reliable sources on it, so the existence of it as a separate article would violate WP:V.  --Xyzzyplugh 02:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree.  In fact, I didn't even know there was a totalfark.com article.  Cheers, PaddyM 02:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree as well.  It can simply become a section of the Fark page. --Mr. RX99 14:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I  agree 100% with PaddyM. I never even bothered to look at the TF article. It's not bad at all but I don't see why its content can't be incorporated into the main Fark article (preferably also adding a redirect, of course). Afterall, it's not all that different from Fark lite. --Seed 2.0 23:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Totalfark.com]]

message: ...when the oil hits the anus. This is a fark cliche, although not one of the most common ones, referencing (I think) a Usenet post in which a doctor is asked what would happen if someone ate (drank?) poison ivy... to wit, it would be OK until the irritating oils reach the anus. I am looking for (but not finding) the original Fark thread and/or Usenet post of origin. Any help would be appreciated. --Leperflesh 19:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  the first Farkism I saw being born, in 2 years of Farking. I'm so proud to have been there.Paganize 07:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: he is likely to have trouble

message: *I've reverted the addition of the 'streetlight' farkism. This is not notable enough to be included. Please be sure that farkisms listed in this section are longer lasting than just a couple of weeks before adding them to this page. Also, please be sure to add adequate references to farkisms added to this page. External links alone are not adequate in order to be used as references (author, title, date of publication, were published, should all be added to inline citations).  Dr. Cash 01:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting point. It also illustrates a problem because for a lot of Farkisms there will simply never be a reliable source. If something is nothing more than a (sub)cultural phenomenon, it'll most likely be limited to very few sites (ie. finding a source for the Abe Vingoda joke might not be a problem, but the 'I work for x so I'm really getting a kick out of..." farkism is a in-joke of sorts). Normally, we'd just remove stuff like that and it wouldn't be much of problem because it only affects a specific, small group of people. But that's not really the case here. I think finding good cites for most Farkisms is going to be a problem but I agree that we should at least keep the list maintainable or move more obscure farkisms to a UD-style website that the article links to. -- Seed 2.0 13:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionable farkisms

message: Just a quick heads up: since the talkpage had become really huge, I've archived some old stuff. I have left those parts most relevant to new editors or to ongoing discussions in place, as well as newer comments. The archived content is here and also accessible via the archive box at the top of the page. -- Seed 2.0 18:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: Does anyone know what the genuine source was of the newly popular cliche talking about how a person's "anus was unremarkable", even if the article or person has no relevance to anuses?  I'm guessing it has something to do with Anna Nicole Smith, since it only seems to have appeared in articles about her since her death, but the cliche puzzles (and amuses) me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.176.13.22 (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, that's true. TSG posted it, TF was flooded with links (as usual) and that's the headline they greenlit. -- Seed 2.0 20:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anus was unremarkable... 

message: I removed This Is Not Art Productions from the FarkTV section. TINA Productions is no longer affiliated with FarkTV. --Joethepeacock 23:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but you can't just claim it's "mostly negative" without a reliable source to back that up. A blog does not qualify. -- Kesh 18:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Nowhere on that page does it say that. Nor does that page support the statement that "the general consensus" is negative. Oh, and welcome to a warning for violating WP:CIVIL. -- Kesh 00:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Which you've done again. I've been polite to you, please show me the same respect. -- Kesh 16:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FarkTV Edit 

message: Lately Fark has been censoring heavily.  Should that be mentioned in the fark article at all?  (deletion of an entire thread) --Lincoln F. Stern 02:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually, that's nothing new. I've been a Farker for a long time now and threads disappearing (as in 'for good', not as in 'going green and getting pulled') has been more or less common for as long as I've been a user. It's probably not really worth mentioning and may even be a bit problematic since it can't really be sourced (short of using before-and-after screenshots which would be... a bit much ;). -- Seed 2.0 22:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I've added a note about banniNation as one of the banned discussion topics on Fark. Ironically, someone has taken it upon himself to delete the banniNation entry from Wikipedia, but I'm not really interested in fighting that battle. --Metamatic 15:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep, I was recently shadowbanned for simply being something other than a venomous liberal. Virulent and despicable anti-military comments and pictures are tolerated, and absurd 9/11 conspiracies are tolerated while bold counterarguments get a person banned. I've documented this kind of thing happening many times yet nothing is ever included in the main article. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 15:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no verifiable sources outside of FARK itself that discusses shadowbanning. Which means we can't cite a source, which means we can't add it to an article. That aside, this is a page for discussing the article, not a soapbox for your political opinions. -- Kesh 16:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship 

message: Should probably mention it... Also, I've noticed that it's HORRIDLY slow and ugly. JoshJGT 21:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No kiddin'. Right now I can't even get to the comments - it just times out half the time (Fark Lite seems even worse than TF for me). And the layout looks like it was hardcoded for 800x600. And the thread on the mainpage about the new design is already pushing 1200 posts. -- Seed 2.0 22:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Its like fark for people who like American Idol.  PaddyM 23:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, that's a good point and a bit of an ongoing problem (this has also been discussed, to some degree, above and elsewhere): Fark is a major news aggregator but, for most people, it's "just a website"(tm). Hence, you'll find plenty of real-world articles that deal with the site in general and the odd interview thrown in for good measure, but since it's "just a website" very few authors will take the time to deal with a specific issue (just like very few readers will want to read about it). Technically, one could argue that makes it OR and, again technically, one would be correct. By that logic, we'd have to delete ~50% of this article and large partsof other articles though. This issue, obviously, isn't exclusive to Fark: I remember looking for a reliable source when the SA/Paypal thing happened all the way back in August or September of 2005 and for quite a while, I couldn't find any that met RS and V. The story hit the Slashdot mainpage a few days later and only then did the media pick it up. -- Seed 2.0 18:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of Layout (and Code) 

message: The last sentence of the History section contains the phrase "more on that later", which really doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article.  --dinomite 13:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section 

message: There's a link to "mustard" in the article that needs to be changed to point to "Mustard (condiment)". (Repairing link to disambiguation page - You can help!) If an admin-type could make that change, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. CSWarren 16:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link-editing request 

message: Fark entry probably requires a criticism section concerning all the "shady" stuff that people report about.
Shadowbanning, excessive moderation, layout, moderator and admin interaction, selling of links without letting the users know.  Any others? --Lincoln F. Stern 23:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As others have pointed out, we would need verifiable reliable sources to cite for those claims. So far, none have been found. If you are aware of any, please discuss them here so we can improve the article. -- Kesh 17:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shadowbanning is verified on http://ergh.org/farkdeceit/, but by its nature 'verification' by independent third parties is not possible. Instead we can cite that shadowbanning is alleged, and link to evidence - that should satisfy NPOV as well as citability. --Leperflesh 07:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. As you state, there are no verifiable third party sources, which is what WP:RS requires. Until someone actually does create such a source on the concept, it doesn't have a place on Wikipedia. -- Kesh 02:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: On a related note, I'm going to come back with the Pruning shears later this weekend. There's way too many citations that link to forums and Fark itself, which does not suit WP:RS. If folks want to find some other sources to back up those quotes, please do. Otherwise, this article is going to shrink quite a bit. -- Kesh 17:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs to. Faethe 23:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, this article needs a serious clean up. --Lincoln F. Stern 21:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Please read WP:V and WP:RS. We need a reliable, independent source to show this information. Even if you showed people unable to log in, that wouldn't help with "shadowbanning" unless the page splashes up "You have been shadowbanned" when they try to log in. It's a term some folks on Fark made up to explain banning without notification. If you can find some reliable sources that discuss it, then we can add it to the article. -- Kesh 18:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you do not understand what shadowbanning is nor the legal ramifications about it.  One ramification is the legality of shadowbanning a paying member without informing them, which fark currently engages. --Lincoln F. Stern 09:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: I don't see the problem with deletion of long amounts of unsourced information, including:
* Fark/Something Awful rivalry.  There is no source for any of this information whatsoever, and people have requested a source since February.
* Ananova controversy.  There is no source for any of this information whatsoever, and people have requested a source since February.
* "Drew responded to this by saying he had considered selling links he was already going to post to servers that could handle the bandwidth," etc.  There is no source for this information either, not even links to a forum post.
* Tags.  No source for "The signature of Fark has always been the tags given to stories by submitters," or the use of tags and their declines, and the use of humorous symbols in place of comment numbers, etc. etc.
* Farkisms and Cliches.  Seems to violate many of the things that Wikipedia is not, and it's nearly 30k in size.
* Filters.  No source for any of this information either, and it's not all that noteworthy anyway?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Elchip (talk • contribs) 
:I personally found the information presented in its condensed form to be inherently useful; however, I am not sufficiently acquainted with the relevant policy to argue against its removal should community consensus favour so. Having said that, I find it unacceptable that newly-registered accounts (no disrespect intended) are taking it upon themselves to remove hours of work by other editors without having received (or even requested) community input on the matter. Be bold, but do not be reckless. Ayla 14:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's helpful, but is it Wikipedia's business to provide what (in some cases) ends up being a FAQ for the idiosyncrasies of various Web forums? Elchip 15:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the information should be removed, since it doesn't cite any secondary sources (citing Fark about Fark isn't enough). We're an encyclopedia, not a FAQ. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have submitted a request for comment on WP:RFC/ART with the aim of generating a community discussion. Ayla 16:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is no substantial community response within a few days and you decide to go ahead with the removal, then I would recommend dropping a copy of the material on this talk page for future reference. Ayla 21:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unverifiable Claims