Talk:Graffiti

Art or vandalism?
A huge amount of this article is devoted to the notion of graffiti as an artform, and yet the majority of graffiti is criminal juvenile tagging, endlessly repeated, without talent, originality or imagination. Nowhere does the article mention that graffiti is unpopular, and yet it is. A 2014 Yougov poll (for example), conducted in the UK, showed that only 15% of the population actually liked graffiti, whereas 45% of the population positively disliked it, albeit that a slim majority agreed with the (totally irrelevant) postulation that some graffiti could be considered art. It goes without saying that some graffiti could of course be considered art: but unfortunately it's only about 0.001% of it. Surely the unpopularity of graffiti should be mentioned?

Section "Offensive graffiti"
The section "Offensive graffiti" seems a bit fuzzy, since "offensive" doesn't have a clear definition to begin with. Also, it's unclear how the "One World!" piece connects to the section, anyway, without context. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Section "Use"
The final paragraph of this section seems like it could use some heavy editing. The subject in the first sentence, "graffitist", isn't exactly clear; the way it's used makes it sound like the paragraph is referring to the beliefs of an individual rather than a broader ideological trend. This is also made more confusing by the way the rest of the paragraph is written. It's both very specific and subjective in a way that makes it sound more like a quote than an encyclopedia entry. The paragraph cites one source, a page on a website called The Art Story. Looking on this page, it seems like most of the text in this paragraph is just a paraphrased version of the summary section of that page. If this section is going to be kept, I think it needs to be revised to specifically refer to what it's saying as an opinion being put out by this website. With the level of detail being repeated and the lack of mentioning where the ideas are from, it comes across much more as plagiarism than as reference, and if the current level of detail is necessary, it should be included as a quote rather than as paraphrasing. Andurad (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

There's a typo that I want to fix, Why is this article semi-protected?
Someone misspelled "Vandalism" and put "vanadlism" instead. Joe (USA) (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. 162 etc. (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Graffiti in Wikipedia itself
Would it perhaps make sense to mention the form of inserting non-content-related entries into Wikipedia articles (vandalism) as a kind of modern graffiti in the chapter on "Modern Experimentation"? As Wiki(gra)ffiti, so to speak, "Wikifitti". Spezi91 (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry, typo: "Wikiffiti" Spezi91 (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you cite sources for this? See WP:OR. 162 etc. (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello 162 etc.,
 * I noticed the term "Wikiffiti" was coined in 2008 by Matt Mechtley (see: Citation needed - Wikipedia) as a form of sticker art in the real world:
 * e.g.:
 * https://boingboing.net/2008/01/02/wikiffiti-stickers-t.html
 * [citation needed | Know Your Meme ]
 * But the term "Wikipedia graffiti" was used, for example here:https://www.flyertalk.com/articles/have-you-seen-american-airlines-ceo-doug-parkers-wikipedia-page.html in the way of a modification of a Wikipedia article. Examples could also found in social media, like Twitter (X) with the search of "Wikipedia graffiti" or #Wikiffiti ...
 * Therefore, one or both of these could be considered to see if they can be usefully integrated into the article or if they are irrelevant to the reader.
 * Best regards, Spezi91 (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that the sources you've cited here are particularly reliable. See WP:SOURCES 162 etc. (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that the sources you've cited here are particularly reliable. See WP:SOURCES 162 etc. (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)