Talk:Urban Dictionary

message: 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)
thread_title:  I don't think this entry is really Wikipedia-like 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lead-in, suburb dictionary and trash my own edit 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for reply, I have stalled my action awaiting comment, I'll go see before acting CaptainScreebo Parley! 21:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete "Traffic and users" section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reference to deletion of entries appears to be out of date 

message: 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)
thread_title: Template

message: 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)
replies: text: It's a list of definitions for various words; sounds like a dictionary to me. DP76764 (Talk) 06:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dictionary]]? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Dubious claims 

message: 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)
thread_title:  IBM's Watson 

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. His name currently redirects to the Urban Dictionary page, but a separate page is warranted. I will try to look into this Bergin (talk • contribs). Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 14:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

text: There are very specific criteria that must be adhered to regarding living persons. Please see WP:BLP and WP:Notability. WTF? (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  why doesnt this guy have a page? 

message: 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)
replies: text: ..why did you censor "Facebook"? Prinsgezinde (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  No need to censor. Odd. I dream of Maple (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accounts 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Urban Dictionary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141129021255/http://ads.urbandictionary.com/ to http://ads.urbandictionary.com
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141225210729/http://www.calpolynews.calpoly.edu/magazine/fall-09/alumni-roundup.html to http://www.calpolynews.calpoly.edu/magazine/fall-09/alumni-roundup.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi, I also hyperlinked the Vocabulary.com, it is not a page yet, but maybe that will motivate someone to add content/create that page. Uchechi. (talk) 04:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: vocabulary.com seems to be a non-notable vanity page. I don't see why it needs a wikipedia article. Please review WP:Notability. Every single website does not need an article about it, but if it's written by a particular company, there may be an article about that company instead. WTF? (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

text: No need to link.I dream of Maple (talk) 05:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyperlink Vocabulary.com  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Urban Dictionary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130430065229/http://www.nobleworkscards.com/urban-dictionary-funny-greeting-cards.html to http://www.nobleworkscards.com/urban-dictionary-funny-greeting-cards.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: We should add a section highlighting how Urban dictionary has recently changed the definition of terms. For example the term "trump derangement syndrome" which even Wikipedia defines as "for criticism or negative reactions to United States President Donald Trump that are perceived to be irrational, and have little regard towards Trump's actual policy positions" had been recently changed to mean the complete opposite of what actually it means in urban/pop culture. Similarly other words like "Trap" and other have been recently modified to what the original and still common meaning is.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.173.63 (talk) 06:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suddenly changing meaning of terms 

message: There seems to be little "urban" about Urban Dictionary. It does not focus on cities in particular. So why is it called "Urban Dictionary"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spanghew2fs (talk • contribs) 02:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably in the same category as "urban legends", which also don't necessarily have to be about cities. 70.124.147.243 (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  meaning of "urban" 

message: There is a part in this where it repeats itself. Fix now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.116.194 (talk • contribs) 20:41, November 4, 2021 (UTC)
:How about giving us a hint as to what the problem is? I'm not going to read the entire article in the hopes of spotting what you meant. Meters (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The page repeats itself and since I'm constantly logged out due to an annoying error I can't do stuff with it.  

message: This article uses Urban Dictionary as a source, twice. It says on the article "Wikipedia:Reliable sources" that user-generated content is not a reliable source, so I'll be taking Urban Dictionary as a source out. Feel free to discuss this edit, though. --KawaiiManiac (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urban Dictionary can't be a source 

message: Hello, I was reading the Urban Dictionary article and noticed that on Application, other, on the Duterte section is that theirs's no citation and would like to request someone to add a citation using this or something else. https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2019/08/21/1945196/palace-disputes-na-duterte-urban-dictionary-entry Randomuserontheinter (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the source and some additional information that was in the article. Thank you for your request! Yeeno  (talk) 🍁 00:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2021

message: the link is broken (IBM uses urban dictionary for Watson. VapingMan (talk) 11:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Peaceray (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  the link about Watson using urban dictonary is broken 

message: Urban Dictionary is not any of the types listed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Italic type. Sandsandsandsa (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is one of the listed types. It's the title of a major work. Per MOS:ITALICWEBCITE: "Online non-user-generated encyclopedias and dictionaries should also be italicized. Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis." Presumably this is a case of a user-generated dictionary website where it has been decided to italicize. Meters (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the title italicized? 

message: The “See also” subsection should be deleted entirely. It contains a single wlink to Reference.com, an unrelated online lookup resource. According to the article Reference.com does not relate to Urban Dictionary in any way. The wlink is apparently an effort to promote Reference.com. 2603:9004:A04:7C1D:A821:E738:5E26:12F0 (talk) 12:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2022 

message: SuperIdol24 (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: The ref you provided just says "4,423,676 definitions since December 9, 1999", not that the site was made on that date. It's not an unreasonable assumption, but it's still an assumption. Aoidh (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2022 

message: The redirect Reliability of Urban Dictionary has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 19:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Reliability of Urban Dictionary]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]