Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica/Archive 2

Plea for Harvard style
AnmaFinotera made a good-faith reversion to the embedded-link style of reference rather than the standard Harvard-style that I prefer - mainly because embedded links in references make the source text completely unreadable. Plea to return to a standard and widely-used academic style of referencing? Peter Damian (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe both are permitted per WP:MoS, so the version first in the article is the one used.  MBisanz  talk 19:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The method of embedding URL's in the source text, which makes it unreadable, is not recommended, as far as I can see. Peter Damian (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I converted it from to. Looks neater, I think. Steve Crossin  (talk)   (review)  19:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think they are all listed at CITE as permissible. MBisanz  talk 19:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict x2)That is purely wrong, and it is the most widely used method on Wikipedia, particularly in articles of this type. There is nothing wrong with the current style and Harvard style is wholly inappropriate and useless for this type of article. I undid the reflist|2 because it doesn't have enough to warrant it. When it has 20, then you can two column it.AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I still haven't found any reference on the style manuals to embedded URLs. There is a recognised difference between putting the name of the work in the ref itself, and Harvard style, yes.  But these two methods do not include actually embedding the URL in the text itself, which is barbaric.  Peter Damian (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, no, it is not "barbaric" and it is perfectly fine. Hence the existance of the cite web template, and for in-line citations. There is nothing wrong with the citations being directly in the text, where they belong. I personally find shoving everything to the bottom and forcing people to hunt around to find stuff to be barbaric, ugly, and less than useless. If you really think it doesn't belong, why don't you go argue the dozens and dozens of featured articles using the same style as this article. This is not academia and you can't force those ugly Harvard styles on anyone. If consensus doesn't agree it belongs, we use the regular citation method. Oh, and the link MBisanz gives above supports it just fine, if you read of context.AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As a non-cite-dork user, I totally do not understand this issue, beyond Pete wants to use one type of citation, and AnmaFinotera wants another. So that I don't have to go digging (because I am extremely lazy), can these differences be explained, to help further concensus? Howa0082 (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is the style Peter links, which is rarely to never used outside of academia topics. It shoves all the references and stuff to the bottom, then just puts (last name) in the text between the ref tags. So if you want to edit the source, or make a correction, you have to go hunt it down at the bottom of the page and try to match it. My method is the typical and standard method of having the source between the reference tags where it belongs. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Again NO! See A's talk page. It is the use of URLs in references that I object to, because then you have to write a whole paragraph through a briar thicket of URLs. Peter Damian (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, if we cite an online source as a reference for a particular piece of information (as we surely must, if the subject is a website), don't we have to provide the URL? UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 19:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) And, as I said on my talk page, frankly you need to get over it. Its an article about a website. There is no sane reason to dump every last ref with a URL (which will be 90-99% of them) to the bottom just because YOU don't like seeing a URL while you're editing it. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Look I'm the person who rewrote that paragraph. As I commented on your talk page, you appear to be one of the many editors who edit one line at a time, without reading the whole thing.  I rewrote the para.  Why can't I provide the style of referencing I am comfortable with?? Peter Damian (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your arrogant, and frankly wrong, presumption that I edit "one line at time" is just plain asinine, and mildly insulting, and has no place in this argument. As for why can't you provide the style you are comfortable with: because consensus doesn't agree with you, because the article had an established referencing style, and because your don't to make the other 99% of editors comfortable just for your sake. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict?!?!!!1) Personally, dude, I find it not-at-all difficult to sift through the inline style when I'm editing. And, if I understand this right, Harvard-style doesn't let you name a ref in the code, then just type to add another citation to that same reference? Howa0082 (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What I am objecting to
There is a complete confusion about what I am complaining about here. I have no particular beef about whether the reference, without URL, is located inside the 'ref' tags in the source text. It's when URLs are linked that I go mad. I cannot edit a whole paragraph into a single coherent thought when faced with this. Below is what you now see when you try to edit the article. Who can EDIT their way through, faced with that?

Encyclopedia Dramatica is a parody of internet encylopedias such as Wikipedia, written on a wiki, using apparently comprehensive referencing and linking, but in a satirical and often abusive style. Many of the articles are written in an ironic manner with the express purpose of upsetting those who take it seriously (an activity known on the Internet as trolling). The content is wide-ranging, covering drama and gossip on other internet forums, Internet subculture, users of web services and online catchphrases in a coarse, offensive and frequently obscene manner.


 * That is a standard wikipedia format for citing articles. Check any FA.   MBisanz  talk 19:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (EC) I don't know about my esteemed colleagues here, but I'll open the article itself in a tab and read it there, find what I want to edit, then hit ctrl-F in the edit window and find that text. Much simpler for big articles, and it bypasses all of the referencing. I'll also add that I'm a big fan of, which cuts down a LOT of the clutter. The value of inline citations with URLs (to document WP:V) trumps ease of editing, in my mind. The alternative is to write the paragraph and then ref it. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 19:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (Conflict!) I dunno, man, if you can't hold onto the thought of the line you've been reading while you scan ahead to find the end of the reference, well, I don't know. But that seems a little strange for someone who insists upon academic standards to not be able to, like, remember stuff. Y'know? I swear to god, I'm not trying to flamebait you, it just seems silly to me. Howa0082 (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As an aside, is this what you want articles to look like, Peter? Because, if so, damn. That's crap. Nothing quite breaks up my ease of reading an article than seeing huge nonsense words floating around the text. Those inlines are SEXY. Howa0082 (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No I think you misunderstand. I use endnotes.  But I keep the material in there at a minimum.  Peter Damian (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if it might be easier to put the cite section (not just specific to here, but in general) in one list-format location, and then just drop refnames throughout the article? Would that be against MOS? I'm wondering based on this comment if that might be better for my articles... Lawrence Cohen §  t / e  19:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Its possible, but most people don't find it generally to be easier. The coding is different. The section on Wikiepedia:Citing sources on In-line cites gives an example of it, but it isn't widely used from what I've seen, likely due to the way you have to do it code wise. Citing sources/Further considerations has a fuller example. I wouldn't call it easier myself :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Linking URLs may be common, but I have been editing Wikipedia since 2003, and it's a comparatively new phenomenon. Indeed, providing citations is only relatively recent. All I am saying is that if I make a major edit to an article, it is reasonable for me to choose the style of citation.  Reasonableness is all I am asking.  And for the record here is AnmaFinotera's profile which does, as I say, consist mostly of articles about lists of things.  This is not meant as disparaging, but a list approach easier accomodates the embedded URL approach than the whole-paragraph one.  Peter Damian (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyone and everyone know that the Kate tool is only useful if an editor doesn't work with a lot of articles. My actual editing history and my user page far better document my extensive work. So stop looking down your nose at me, particularly considering your history here. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Peter Damian (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You came on with what seemed like a very aggressive revert, you tell me to 'get used to it' or whatever. I apologise if what I said seemed condescending.  It was not meant that way: I meant, my style of editing requires going through large chunks of text at a time, and given I rewrote that paragraph, it was unreasonable of you to revert.  Peter Damian (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Your last account was given an indef block, as is plainly noted on your user page. And, FYI, your link above is to YOUR profile, not mine, and just shows what a very limited editing scope you have. Just as you had on your old account. You edit almost entirely in academic topics, which this is not within the realm of at all. Your comfort with the ugly style preferred there has no relevance here at all, and thus far, not a single editor has supported your desire.AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Your "apology" has no sincerity when you continue to insult my editing. And no, your rewriting does not mean you have free reign to redo the entire citation of the style without consensus. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Apologies here is yours. On who supports what, of course, you win on a show of hands.  Peter Damian (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I must go now. Shall we try to be friends?  I haven't reverted your revert, after all.Peter Damian (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I know where mine is, I have it clearly linked from my user page. And while I'm glad you didn't attempt to revert before the page was protected, I'd have to say no, sorry, but after all the insulting on my editing, friends isn't a word I think of while conversing with you at the moment. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh well. But there is this joke about Wikipedia and Pokemon and anime and all that real-world stuff, as you surely know.  Farewell. Peter Damian (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope, sorry, don't know it and don't particularly care. People want to be ignorant and make stupid jokes about stuff, that's on them. *shrug* My editing history really speaks for itself, despite your attempts to minimize and insult it, and your false claims that I mostly work on list stuff (where as the very history you point to shows clearly that I work in a wide range of areas, and on a relatively equal number of articles and lists). The fact that you claim the lists don't require "prose" only goes to show you didn't even look at them, just made some assumptions to devalue my editing. Don't know the Pokeman and Wikipedia joke, but since you do, I'm sure you also know what they say about making assumptions. In the future, I suggest you actually do real looking before trying to pigeonhole an editor's contributions and then dismiss them.AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Protected
I've protected the page because there seems to be edit warring over whether or not we can link to ED. This isn't going to be sorted with ArbCom clarification at RFArb, so it is likely that the good faith edit warring would continue. The article is in a stable state, so until the clarification comes, there's no urgent need for the page to be open to edit, but if an edit becomes apparent, please use the editprotected template.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  19:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's protected, please no editing. The last thing we need is drama. Lawrence Cohen §  t / e  20:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose people already know this, and I meant to mention this earlier, but the talk page has been semi-protected due to a recent vandal wave. Acalamari 21:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Vulgar?
I see we've called ED satirical, abusive, ironical, upsetting, trolling, coarse, offensive and obscene. Could we please call it vulgar too? Wikidemo (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * AnmaFinotera removed the word "vulgar" from the intro before protection occurred. I'd support its re-addition.  MBisanz  talk 20:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should be calling it anything... we should be citing what reliable sources call it. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No I changed 'vulgar' to 'coarse', which was what was meant. Peter Damian (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't remove it, Peter did. I just put back his rewrite, without the hideous citation redo. I personally suspect the language is still far from being NPOV, even with the sourcing, so suggestions on better phraseology would be good. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hardly NPOV is it? Martinp23 20:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If the negative in tone comments are from 3rd party RS, as in the NY Times calls this site "a piece of shit", we can say "The NY Times called this website a piece of shit". For simple descriptive material like that, as it's sourced, it's fine to call this shit site vulgar. Lawrence Cohen  §  t / e  20:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Lovely. Martinp23 20:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Usually you don't have to cite uncontroversial summary adjectives in an article lead if they're supported by the article. I think "vulgar" is a little less rude than to say "offensive" (which is a value judgment) and "obscene" (which is almost certainly technically incorrect).  Not a big deal though.  I don't think we are compelled to repeat every disparagement made by a notable person or publication.  In fact, I don't think there is such a thing as a reliable source that something is a P.O.S. They don't mean that literally, they're just editorializing.  And we don't run an editorial insult count on every single thing just because someone writes an editorial about it.  Wikidemo (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "it's fine to call this shit site vulgar" "this shit site vulgar" "shit site" -> WP:OR Howa0082 (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, its a shock site, but when taking the moral high-ground 'vulgar', 'offensive', 'obscene' and 'rude' remain OR. Unless of course someone can cite someone else having said that. Ditto " using apparently comprehensive referencing and linking, but in a satirical and often abusive style.[citation needed] ," and where the "apparently" only reinforces the OR-ishness. -- Fullstop (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think "vulgar" is too judgmental, not compared to these other words. It just means it uses provocatively lewd language and discusses colorful subjects.  Here is one citation for vulgar but just the Myspace article.  They also use the word "blunt."  I like that one, blunt.  Wikidemo (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I like "coarse". If you've got a tv show where everyone says "fuck" and "shit" and "niggers", like The Sopranos, they'll throw a "coarse language" warning up on that on your average tv station. So I think coarse is a much more appropriate word that adequately describes the content. Vulgar and obscene are value judgements, and some people won't find it at all obscene, or find it vulgar. Coarse takes no sides on whether such language is good or bad. So, thusly, I nominate "coarse" at the Kingsmoot. Long live the coarse! Howa0082 (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think vulgar is more neutral than coarse. Coarse implies that something is rough, unfinished, low quality...it's also a euphemism. Vulgar is a proud word.  Perhaps they can have a  google fight.  Aw, damn.  "Coarse" won.  Nevermind then.  Wikidemo (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Every adjective represents -- by its very nature -- an evaluation of quality, of value. What "some people" think is not pertinent; either such qualification is cite-able or its not. Myspace is unfortunately not a good source, otherwise "blunt|... " (as a direct quote) would be fine. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC) ps: I really don't understand the aversion to direct quotation for evaluative statements anyway.
 * Yes, and not just adjectives, nouns. But we don't cite every word indivdually here.  In the lead section we're sometimes known to summarize... using toned down language to describe strong things is not necessarily accurate or neutral.  Sometimes the denial and soft-pedaling itself becomes a POV issue.  Perhaps we can look to how other messy sites like fuckedcompany, slashdot, etc., and articles about magazines like Vice.  Wikidemo (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

See also?
The article has a See also for 'Internet privacy'. What is that doing there? -- Fullstop (talk) 22:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The Fortuny incident.  Corvus cornix  talk  22:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Elonka added it with the summary "Adding link to other article which talks about the subject." Can't say that I agree it belongs myself. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I also think it should go. It's this diff. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A link is by definition superfluous when it can't be worked into the article itself. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirects
Encyclopædiadramatica.org, Encyclopædiadramatica.com, Encyclopediadramatica.org and Encyclopaediadramatica should probably be protected, as well. Corvus cornix talk  22:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll be bold and say they should be permanently protected at that. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've semi-protected them for now, though if anyone objects, I can unprotect them, though I'm not sure what purpose having them unprotected would serve. Acalamari 22:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of sleeper trolls... apparently ED has a "slave name". Lawrence Cohen §  t / e  23:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And I've sent the redirects created by the now-banned troll that include the ED web address to WP:RFD.  MBisanz  talk 23:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Chebyshev is not a sleeper troll, he is the 3rd sock (or so) of User:Weierstrass, an active and knowledgable editor of mathematics articles who has a tendency to get riled up, act incivilly, and get banned. Z00r (talk) 03:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There are several more redirects than the above. Corvus cornix talk  01:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I protected all the ones I didn't nom for deletion.  MBisanz  talk 01:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good call. Acalamari 18:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

protection / new information
I don't understand how can I add new information to this article, since its protected, but I wanted to add the information about the stylization of the word Encyclopædia (see for example Pink (singer)). --Have a nice day. Running 01:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * List the content you want on this page, and add the term editprotected and an admin will come and review the submission. This process is necessary due to editwarring over the content of the page.  MBisanz  talk 01:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well then.. --Have a nice day. Running 01:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

please add (sometimes stylized as Encyclopædia Dramatica) to the beginning of this article.


 * I'm seeing no objections to this... anyone? UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 03:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

✅ I have made the requested change. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 03:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)