Talk:4chan/Archive 8

message: I think this artice should be on the Internet Memes Category.--Tuddy15 (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  4chan is a meme? 

message: Would it not be useful to create a list of all the "/something/"s on 4chan and what they mean?  That's what I came to the article looking for... Crowley 09:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A list of the boards is visible when one goes to the website.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So just because it's on another website is a reason why we shouldn't have it here?  Doesn't that invalidate most of the whole Wikipedia...? Crowley 11:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It would be long list that wouldn't really add anything to the article.  All that could be sourced is the topic of each board, which is in the frame beside front page, and the rules of each board, which is on it's own page.  Trying to discuss the culture and in-jokes of even the popular boards (/a/, /b/, /v/, etc.) would steer too far into original research. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 03:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I would like to second the request for the explanation of /b/, /t/, etc.  I always thought I was tech-savvy, but this 4-chan/2-chan thing is absolutely beyond me. I came here looking for an explanation of the /whatever/s and instead find only that terms like /b/ are thrown around without definition.--Iritscen 17:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks.  At least the list is on the discussion page, which is better than nowhere. --Iritscen 17:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: A list like that isn't even necessary anyways.  A comprehensive general description of all the /boards/ in one paragraph should cover it. KyuuA4 06:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  /something/ 

message: I noticed that this article was deleted for an odd reason. To the editor responsible, it would be best if you explained yourself, as well as why restore it for equally odd reasons. Unless it was a mistake of course. Deleting fairly well established articles is rather unusual policy.. - AVX 00:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was deleted to get rid of some questionable diffs.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion? 

message: This section needs revising by someone who knows the history.  It's implied that BT continue to block access, however I myself have been accessing 4chan and /b/ for the last seven months through BT broadband with no problems at all. Parjay 19:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocks in the UK 

message: Seeing as another user was incapable of posting this properly, there were edits to include /c/ in the article, but I doubt that it has gotten any news coverage. Right now, only six boards are mentioned on this page (mostly because they have over 1M posts), but is there any other board that is remotely notable in Wikipedia's guidelines?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, the notability guideline doesn't cover the specifics of an article's content. So I don't think it is a question of notability, more of a question of is it original research? --Android Mouse 19:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True. There's not much we can really state other than other boards exist.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Rules section of 4chan's Page includes a description of permitted content on each board. 0reteki 05:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The Slashdot Article has a section on "Article Sections", and its pretty extensive. I agree that a list is pointless. How about we just add descriptions of boards with over a certain number of posts, say maybe 2M or 3M or whatever you think reflects significance of the board. 0reteki 05:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Coverage of other boards

message: Maybe we could put a little more emphasis on how 4chan is notorious on the internet for being ruthless/apathetic/uncaring/disgusting? It's pretty much the first thing people think of/say when you mention 4chan. Maybe we could change the opening line to "notorious imageboard"?--87.194.98.220 21:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seemed a little biased in my opinion, and it didn't actually indicate 4chan. InsaneZeroG 21:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It shows continual screenshots of 4chan. Out of interest, what kind of a source would justify 'notorious'?--87.194.98.220 15:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It also shows screenshots of 420chan which may or may not also be the same screenshots. Also see: Wikipedia:Reliable sources InsaneZeroG 22:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not screens of 4chan, you confound yourself. They're 7chan, 420chan and Ebaumsworld. It' a running gag in those websites to blame 4chan userbase for anything they do, since 4chan userbase is larger and more civilised than their scum Anonymous gang.130.251.167.29 10:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: "Notoriety" wouldn't be something that would be used.  Besides, the news report seems flawed (Fox 11's "accuracy").  A section about "Inappropriate content" would be viable though (about child and adult pornography and vulgar images mainly on /b/). DiamondDragon DESU 18:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't we include this then? Would we need sources for the Child Porn? --87.194.98.220 12:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notoriety 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail: 
 
The article overall fails to provide a very clear and concise picture of exactly what 4chan is, other than an internet message board. There's little info on it's significance to the overall internet culture, and the controversy section is at least half of the article, leading me to think that the primary purpose being served here is as a sounding board for 4chan user's complaints (hence the failure on criterion 4 of the GA criteria.
Some specific issues with this article include:
* The lead section is too short. It should adequately summarize the article and essentially be a mini-version of the article itself. Please review WP:LEAD for further information on this.
* There are two 'citation needed' tags in the article. While most of the information is reasonably well referenced, these tags tell me that some information is challenged, which fails the GA criteria.
* The article also has several citations to some of its own message board forum posts. Message board forums are not considered reliable sources. There is also a citation to a google search (which turns up blank, BTW), and should not be used as a reference.
* The 'origins' section is far too short. Consider changing the name of this section to 'history', and greatly expand it.
* The name of the 'layout' section does not seem to match the content of the section. When I see 'layout', I think it would describe the layout of the site, and it's general functionality. It seems to go into more detail on specific discussion boards. Consider renaming this section.
* Again, at least half of this article is contained in the 'controversy' section. Perhaps this is just because there's too little information in other sections, so this will be solved by expanding the article. But overall, criticism and controversy sections are largely discouraged in articles (see Wikipedia:Criticism).
I think that covers the major issues. But overall, this article is quite a way away from GA status. Good luck! Dr. Cash 05:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I disagree with your assessment that the article is a haven for complaints about the site (as opposed to, say, Neopets controversy), and the usefulness of the criticism/controversy section (which contains the most reliably sourced and pertinent information about 4chan, unfortunately), thanks for the tips. I already changed Origins to History and perhaps that section should be merged into the lead. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 06:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: What gets me is that some people flip out and revert like mad whenever people try to attribute memes to 4chan, because there's no way to prove it, so how on Earth can this article possibly prove any claims to notability? 4chan itself is, apparently, not a valid source about 4chan, so how would one say certain things originated there? I remember a small edit war over the LOLcats/Caturday thing, because some stickler wouldn't accept that anything funny could come from 4chan without ten other pages supporting the position. And as a small point, archive.org doesn't archive 4chan due to the porny bits. Howa0082 14:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Minor point, but 4chan is not mirrored at archive.org due to 4chan's robots.txt , which disallows all Internet bots.  (Yes, people still spider 4chan, robots.txt is voluntary). --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 02:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that makes sense, too. I just figured it was the Christina Puzzo. Howa0082 18:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: What is 4chan's "official" purpose for what their website is devoted to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.224.252 (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2007
:Being an imageboard really...It's the same general purpose or idea as Something Awful or Futaba. InsaneZeroG 17:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's pretty much it.  "The primary focus of 4chan is discussion related to Japanese anime, manga, doujinshi, culture, and language; however this is by no means the only topic under discussion at any given time..."  This description's source is a video of 4chan's own panel at the Otakon convention one year. Closetoeuphoria 11:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't say that to describe anything than /b/ really. 4chan's purpose is to be a imageboard for English-speakers. That's, I assume, pretty much it. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 11:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Sauce please InsaneZeroG 00:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the Interview, and be prepared for a lot of awkward meme dropping and mispronunciations. Mr.Hotkeys 18:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The purpose is lulz. Meowy 02:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's what lets you go to sleep at night, fine. But for all of us who aren't new to 4chan, what Bobdoe said is correct, and if there's a source for it, even more so.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by InsaneZeroG (talk • contribs) 03:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think someone (well, two people at least) doesn't understand the phrase "taking the piss". Haven't the time to download a 111mb podcast - but I bet there is quite a lot of the said taking going on in it. Meowy 14:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the purpose of 4chan? 

message: Found a small typo in the FOX 11 section,
"Fox news ran mis-leading fottage ", I'm thinking that should be "footage"
 67.80.185.50 19:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SEMI. Read it. 58.178.50.223 10:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha ha ha. Told. --MichaelLinnear 04:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Typo

message: I saw the section about the October 18, 2006 bomb threat hoax, and I was wondering if the recent September 11, 2007 bomb hoax to Pflugerville High by Trey Burba should be added since he was arrested and all that good stuff that happens.  24.205.177.168 23:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trey Burba

message: ...were created to stop the influx of newfags. keep that in mind as you edit. --AlexOvShaolin 02:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: HURR BLURR RULZ ONE ADN TWO!!!11!!1 Seriously, anon doesn't care about that anymore. Newfags either become anonymous or they leave, and until that point are an immense source of lulz. That's the only rule you need worry about. Howa0082 23:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: "ZOMG NONE"; Remember that. Pacific Coast Highway {blab • stalk} 22:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  rules 1 and 2... 

message: Every time I try to post something on 4chan, it says I am banned forever for "ban evasion" and then I can't even view the site anymore. This doesn't make any sense because my IP changes once a day. How do they do it? Did they install malicious tracking cookies on my computer or something? If so, how do I get rid of it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.189.163 (talk) 08:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I found it: Using Spybot - Search & Destroy, I found a bunch of cookies, several of which were from Statcounter.com, and the program said the default browser was Firefox. I usually only use Firefox to view 4chan, and each Statcounter cookie listed a lengthy "session" number. So just a heads up, if anyone finds themselves banned forever on each IP address they use, just delete all their cookies. I hope that will solve the problem.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.189.163 (talk) 08:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Nah, didn't work. Probably banned my whole IP range. Ah well, screw them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.188.66 (talk) 03:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Being banned 

message: Is anyone able to verify the latest edit: that 4chan is down due to accusations of hosting child pornography?  I don't think this is correct; I found something on 420chan about how its due to DDOS attacks.  "I'm going to clear up a lot of bullshit right now. 4chan is down because of DDoS attacks, stemming from a bunch of guys that are angry that moot doesn't want to move #4chan to lulznet. That's it. That's all this shit is about. 4chan was not v&, it's not the GNAA, it's stupid IRC drama. That is all."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.88.90 (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That edit was bull. Pacific Coast Highway {Trick • or treat!} 21:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I hate it too, sometimes. Pacific Coast Highway {Trick • or treat!} 22:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiable? 

message: I think this should be removed from the article, for several reasons:
# It is a sort of a derivative work of Dragonball Z (specifically, Cell (Dragon Ball)).
# The original copyright owner can't be reliably tracked down (he/she is, obviously, anonymous).  Thus, the copyright status of the original shoop da whoop (which this is a derivative of) is unknown.
# Memes aren't citable.  Images can't be used to get around WP:NOR and WP:V.
Thoughts? --Transfinite (Talk | Contribs) 04:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 04:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think shoop may generally apply as trivial and this is just one making of a trivial thing..... of which there are many makings. 128.175.100.127 18:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Shoop.svg]]