Talk:Newgrounds/Archive 1

Freddyjrjr
Someone is messing around with the Newgrounds edit page who happens to be spamming and vadalising it with the Freddyjrjr stuff. It's all false and Newgrounds has been around longer than Freddyjrjr. --Number17 15:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

King of the Portal?
Can anybody add a section about what exactly the "King of the Portal" title means? I've not seen it explained anywhere, not even on Newgrounds itself, and it's really confusing me. Esn 10:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's the user who gets the most awards in the month, I think. --Bahamut 15:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The King of The Portal is the person that is selected to have the best flashes. Strawberry clock and his gang the clock crew say that he is the forever reigning king, though. The Portal is a place where new flashes created at newgrounds come in. The Portal also shows the best flashes.


 * The king of the Portal is simply a thing animators constantly call themselves it is no honorary title. The first to use this phrase was strawberry clock. --Trusader

--Ayame The Wolf 19:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

stop editing this page
please stop messing, around with it, what it says now is what is correct.

Newgrunds is a community that is in a constant state of change. The automated portal gets hundred(s) of movies a day, one of the most active message boards online, a staff that is invloved in a wide varietty popular websites, music labels and a Video game company and that generates news of varying levels of importance every day. Would you post in the nintendo discussion page and tell them to stop editing the page because its already correct.

Yeah, i agree, with him *points up*, it's always changing so this page will always need editing =P... How comes no one thought to add The Barney Bunch before me? -DeathMoth

im not sure the sections on the clock crew lock legion etc are unbiased, although some seem to spam newgrounds this is not a fact and is a matter of oponion, anyone have any other thoughts? ill admit im not fond of the locks but i cant say there a spamming syndicate and the clock crew (the real clock crew) dont seem to spam

There are a lot of people who hold animosity towards said groups because they believe the whole crew is designed to spam, but these crews are not like myg0t. There are SOME members who spam and extoll the virtues of their clubs a little too much, just like religious activists and anyone who has a strong belief in what they do. They get supported by the crews because the groups work on preserving community and looking out for each other, although this is sometimes undeserved when they mass vote pure spam thanks to an inclusion of the group name, or back up very pious and perhaps bragging praise of said group. These few people unfortunately cause people to believe that the crews are based entirely around self-aggrandizing and spamming. The crews in fact look down on such members for giving the group a bad name, but their ideal of supporting each other and giving everyone a fair chance to showcase their work sadly lets such people get through and corrupt the groups' public image. Basically, assume good faith as per Wikipedia policies and judge such groups not by their past, not by their mistakes and not by their few corrupting members, but by the group as a whole, their more recent submissions and the sheer volume of work they've produced.

Why was the Clock Crew article deleted?

Because Wikipedians can't love. Put it on Votes for undeletion and get people to vote it back in if you want it back.

There is an article on Newgrounds in the Swedish Wikipedia too. (http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newgrounds)

Perhaps a mention of the Neo Geo would be appropriate? --Mylakovich 00:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since the page is protected due to vandalism, can an administrator do this? Thank you. Andrew pmk 02:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Make a link to Clockcrew in this article? (The link should be placed where the reference to Clock Crew is now)
 * Categorize this page under w:Category:Newgrounds which is a new category for all Newgrounds-related articles? This is to organize the growing number of pages related to this topic? (For example, Pico (Newgrounds.com), which I helped clean up but which is still on Votes for deletion).

The king of the portal is the person who makes the best flashwork(s) of the month

Maybe some more info on New Ground Remix?
It lives on. You can replace the 4 with a few other numbers, too. Here's Atomix.

Unprotected
I've unprotected and implemented the new cat and the wikification of Clock Crew -> Clockcrew. Hope those pesky vandals have got bored and wandered off. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

cleanup the timeline
does anyone else think the timeline (especially in 1999) needs to be cleaned up? im gonna try to do that one of these days, but you know.... if anyone could help with that, that would be mucho appreciated --mysekurity 03:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup
As I proposed earlier, this page is in desperate need of cleanup. Many events on that timeline are not important, and the article itself is way too large for a site such as this. Admittedly, Newgrounds is a very important site, but I doubt any article, based on a website or not, deserves this much information, especially since it is cluttered as-is. This article is in major need of a revamp, and anyone willing to participate will get my full support and assistance. However, the correct answer to the issues this article is facing is not to blank most of it. Some is (very?) important information, and deserves to be kept, such as bits about Alien Hominid, and certain parts of the timeline that are vital to the history of Newgrounds. Conversely, this tabloid-esque approach to the life of Tom is not useful, needed, or necissary. Thank you for reading this, and I hope you decide to pitch in. Thanks again, mysekurity 02:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

i rather agree. if tom fulp is notable then he should have his own page. if not, his personal details need to be taken off this page. if particular flash works are encyclopedic they should be mentioned, but with no justification, their mention looks pretty vain. i think this page could be effective at 1/4 its length. Aaronbrick 19:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

That's, besides links—or lack of, rather—, the first thing I noticed, that being the "timeline" doesn't he have an article? --Ο τύπος στις σκιές 18:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Was Newgrounds the first automated portal?
Well, was it? According to Tom Fulp the creator of the site, it was, as can be seen here:. Although he is far from a neutral source, his claims should be taken in consideration. Personally, I can`t remember any flash portal before Newgrounds and almost certainly it was the first big and sucessful one. Thus, if it is impossible to verife this claim, then at least we should especifie that the creator claims this honour.--Vertigo200 12:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Needs clean up
I do agree that this page is in desperate need of a clean up, but in my opinion it doesn't have enough information. Who says this site has too much info? What about other sites like SomethingAwful and YTMND and its List of fads?

Newgrounds is a great and huge website. Like every other one its size, it deserves a quite long and, of course, neutral article. This article needs a complete rewrite and more info about the crews (or seperate pages for them). Too many "small" groups have put too much info on the groups section and it's been vandalized enormously. --TrashLock 10:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd favour a single page covering all the groups and "crews", and merge any remaining articles into it. Better than having this week's misspelling of some crew's name fighting off a deletion nomination every six months. --Billpg 12:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is indeed a good idea. I'll see with the persons in charge of writing their crew's history if they believe it's the best way to do it --TrashLock 15:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * List of Newgrounds groups. (Gaps need filling in.) --Billpg 00:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Good work. Also, there's a glaring lack of evidence for the claims regarding the three "unpopular" groups. I used to be a regular at NG, but not so much anymore, and while I know they are "unpopular" (though that term might be a bit POVish), I haven't taken the time to figure out why (other than the fact that they submit "crap"). A claim like that in this article NEEDS to be backed up. The section I'm specifically referring to is this:
 * ''With the success of these groups, others were also inspired to create new and better crews of their own. The following is a list of crews which are not dead, but yet are not popular among the majority of Newgrounds users.
 * Barney Bunch (Well known, but infamously)
 * Block Band (Slowly churning out flash movies, but hated by many)
 * Robot Rangers (Similar situation with the Block Band)''
 * Useful links would be threads (important ones, not just someone saying, "OMG THEY SUX0R!!!111") and perhaps a few controversial flash. Someone please fill in that information. I'd do it, but I'm a bit pressed for time.
 * -- Hinotori(talk) 04:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * -- Hinotori(talk) 04:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Info box
Am I the only one who disagrees with TITROTU's decision to remove the infobox? I think it's more appropriate than 2 pictures. Newgrounds IS a company. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by TrashLock (talk &bull; contribs).
 * If we're counting votes, I prefer the infobox. --Billpg 19:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The main reason I removed it is because it looked too cluttered. I honestly think that it looks better this way. However, if the majority feels that the infobox needs to be put back, by all means go ahead. --TITROTU 4:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Do me a favor okay?
Don't remove the essential links that I linked for things like Livecorpse's death, or for CerealBoxClock's death. They're important to that part.

That's all I need, and if you guys keep it up it's going to become a big hassle to deal with.

OI WTF M8 WUT DID AH SAY -Buddhist- 21:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The affiliates
Does it not seem a little damaging to to say (end of the first paragraph) that the only affiliates listed are a site display graphic gore and a cartoon porn site? Bit biased i think.

--idOcrEatING 09:46, 28 February 2006 (GMT)

Yeah I had a lot of affiliated sites linked up, but people took them down.


 * shrug*

--Buddhist-

Lots of missing information
I know user turnover at newgrounds is very high and the vast majority don't know the proper history of the site, but there is some very significant information missing from this article:


 * Grounds Gold - The early incarnation of the user system running today
 * Ross Snyder - The guy who created the entire Grounds Gold system and the automated portal is not mentioned anywhere in the article.
 * Development of the portal - Key dates of the development of the portal are missing. The portal was not always automatic.
 * Development of the site - Lots of things like the developmental phases of the site - how the site used to feature only original content, have an entirely flash driven front page. Later the site used frames which was widely unpopular. The second version of the BBS (which is currently being used) etc.

--sebiv 17:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Well Development of the site could technically fall under the timeline, but I suppose we could easily put in a section, i'll get to that sometime.

Ross really gets very little mention in the NG Lit section itself. Although what he did is major, he isn't really remembered that often, only really for the portal. -Buddhist- 21:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfiar?
I'm the principal (but not only) author of the Criticism section. This section is occasionly deleted or generally messed with, usually by IP-address users.

I have to admit my experiences are personal, but I do feel that I have been restrained. My own experiences were in 2004, but I've only recently started talked about it, once I found that others had similar stories. I even edited the early revisions in this talk page before moving it into the main page after no-one had commented. Am I being unfair? --Billpg 20:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Citation-needed-ectomies
Do we have anything verifiable to back up statements made?


 * Newgrounds no longer distribute 180 Solutions software or similar. : Have they publically disavowed all present and future relationships with such companies?
 * Newgrounds transfers 4 to 7 TB daily. : Do they publish network stats?
 * Newgrounds is funded only by advertising revenue. : Are we sure they have no other sources of revenue? (See 28th May 2006 notes below.)
 * Most or all popups on Newgrounds are blocked when logged into a Grounds Gold Account. : Is this an advertised feature? If so, it "Most" or "All"?

Any comments? --Billpg 20:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for interupting, but, http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=52849 suggests they're using a 100MBPS line for the majority of the day, even during off peak, simple math suggests if they're using it 90% of the day, its 7.5 TB. That's also as of "2/21/03 08:44 PM," so most likely, it's even higher today, but we do have a post from Tom Wade, the owner, that proves the 7 TB theory. Sorry, I didn't know how to post this! --NeptuneMan 21:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent! Many thanks. --Billpg 22:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there really any need for the criticism section at all?

It appears that your criticism section, though it does support the existance of the malicious adverts, it doesn't explain the significance of it. It appears that the section was more of an opinion piece to explain your disdain for the site in question and/or for self promotion of your blog. --HowardSF


 * (I presume this is in reference to the spyware section. If I'm wrong, please correct me and I'll respond again.)
 * The significance of this is that software was being installed on my (and other's) computers without the consent of the owner. That the software shows advertising is beside the point, IMO. In my own case, I am quite sure that no ActiveX Are-you-sure dialogue was shown, and I included the link Ben Edelman's website to give expert verification that 180 Solutions' software has been observed being installed through browser vulnerabilities.
 * But I do accept your point, that this not made clear in the main article. (Thank you.) I'll have a think about how this can be re-phrased. In the meantime, if anyone else want's to have a go, please feel free. --Billpg 15:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Self promotion, I don't accept that. (Oooh, there's an unbiased opinion.) The linked to article is relevant to the section and even includes some interesting comments in defense of Newgrounds.
 * Even if it were an act of self-promotion, it failed. Based on my server logs, readership is down, which I suspect is due to my writers-block.
 * Nonetheless, Newgrounds and Me is at the end of a list. I imagine many people will just read the first one or two and then move on. --Billpg 15:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If there is/was some sort of significance to the advertisement, such as a large drop in the amount of site traffic or retalitoratory DDOS attacks on the website, or something similar that would have a significant role in the site, then yes, it would be justified. However, as it stands, the section should just be deleted entirely--both your criticism of their advertising policies, and the hastily posted rebuttal of the criticism. There's no need to have something contentious and disputed in an article if it's not necessary or significant to the subject. HowardSF 00:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * For the spyware section, I must disagree. It covers relevant history of the Newgrounds site. The cited Newgrounds forum posts cover much of 2004 and early 2005, so this doesn't seem like a one-day issue blown out of all proportion.


 * Actually, if the four posts in question were from a short period of time, it would indicate more of a significance, than four posts scattered out over longer periods of time. In terms of being relevant history, if I looked through the forum on the site, I'm sure I can find 4 topics on just about anything.


 * The three remaining posts are dated 9th Jan 2004, 15th Aug 2004 and 21st Jan 2005. All three are about Newgrounds itself, not just using the forum to discuss the general subject. --Billpg 21:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Moreover, in at least one of the threads you've linked, the spyware/adware the poster presented was/is distributed with AIM (e.g. Viewpoint Media Player).


 * Well spotted. I've removed the third forum link. Thank you.


 * This leads me to question the threads themselves; indeed, your blog is the only example given that actually describes spyware being actively transmitted from the site without permission. HowardSF 21:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ben Edelman and myself have both observed this behaviour. --Billpg 21:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The pop-up section is (I hope) a just-the-facts coverage of the issue, but it has a lot of citation-needed tags. As yet, no-one has come to verify or dispute them. Is it significant? Not as significant as the spyware section by long chalk, but the central crux of the section, that Newgrounds put both adverts and content inside popup windows, effectively defeating pop-up blockers, remains verifiable.


 * In all honesty, this part should just be gotten rid of. Unlike spyware or adware, intersitital ads and popups are used by innumerable websites, and are so commonplace that criticism of those on Newgrounds could apply to thousands of other websites just as equally. The Onion, just to name an example of the top of my head, has interstitial ads before you can even access the homepage. Even CNN has interstitial ads before the videos it offers. Unless there's something remarkably unique about Newgrounds's pop-ups and interstitial ads, the criticism should be put into pages on those types of ads. HowardSF 21:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Its not that adverts appear on the intersitial launch page, but that you can only link to that page rather then a page with the embedded content. To actually look at the content, a visitor would need to disable any pop-up blockers. If this practice of requiring pop-up blockers to be disabled is widespread, then I can accept removing this section. IMO, this is kinda small-fry compared to the spyware issue. --Billpg 21:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * (PS, Here's a page with a link to an onion article that does not require me to block pop-ups to read.) --Billpg 23:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I was hoping a few more people would chime in after I posted the above "Unfair?" comments a week ago to form some sort of consensus. As yet, you are the first person (that I recall) to actively engage me in discussion regarding this wikipedia section since I first drafted it back in December last year. I was begining to think that no-one really cared. (Thanks.) --Billpg 15:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Reference to Wikipedia
"Also, adware, spyware, or other unwanted programs were uploaded to Wikipedia." Huh? How was this done, and what connection does this have to newgrounds?--Dagibit 23:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal:
Due to the fact that the forums and the chat fail under WP:V and WP:WEB, they fall under WP:NOR. Thus, I have removed them unless anyone can proove otherwise.68.192.25.106 15:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Lock This Page, Please
I have noticed some people have been putting garbage on the page. Please lock this page from editing until people can maturely come to an agreement.

BurningAfterTheDawn 00:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section wrongly accuses Newgrouds
I am tired of people accusing NEWGROUNDS for all the "Zango" stuff and other spyware they may get. Firstly, that Zango screenshot was probably taken on a computer that already had spyware. Secondly, Newgrounds does not have "full control" of the ads, as they just let their sponsors add some code. Please, stop the madness. Clean up your computer using Ad-Aware and Spybot S&D, then go back to Newgrounds...you'll see it doesn't prompt you for anything.--TrashLock 13:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * According to McAfee's Site Advisor, Newgrounds appears to still be carrying Zango. As for not having full control, they do have the ability to pull an advertiser. Have they kept an advertiser in knowledge that said advertiser is doing this? I dunno.
 * Anyway, the Zango line and screenshot did not come from me. I'm personally more concerned with the drive-by installs. --Billpg 20:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Should this addition be taken out/changed? "Besides ratings, reviewers also supply either praise, helpful information, criticism, or an abusive rant that often makes the reviewer look like a fool. Certain rules have been set up to stop the spread of abusive reviews, but are usally not taken into consideration by the reviewers."

Should there also be a mention of the massive audio portal that newgrounds offers? A lot is missing from the criticism section...much of that isnt relevant. Instead of the spyware, more emphasis should be put on the contraversal material that newgrounds has hosted for years.--JordanNguyen 20:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to write a section about such material, don't let me stop you. --Billpg 21:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

28th May 2006 edits to Cirticism section
I've added a statement that Newgrounds have since changed advertising agencies. My only source is the second comment placed (anonymously) in my Newgrounds and Me article.  This seems a fairly uncontrovertial statement which would be better backed up by some sort of officical announcement on the NG site itself. Does anyone have one?

An edit was also made today (by 81.101.58.1) removing a cite-tag, with the HTML comment that "Everything doesn't need a citation, it's common sense that advertising revenue pays for the content!". That is a very fair point. I've removed the word "only" from the original statement that Newgrounds is only funded by advertising revenue. Where other funding may or may not come from is not really interesting.

I have, however, restored the cite-tags to the 4-7 TB statistic and the note regarding Grounds Gold members. If this information is public knowledge, there should be something the article can point to. These statements provide balance to this section, so I think it is worthwhile keeping them in. --Billpg 22:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

25th June 2006 - Siteadvisor image
Since the siteadvisor image has been removed, I've added a link to the siteadvisor report on Newgrounds. If this rating ever changes, IMO, the link should removed from the list, perhaps to be replaced with a statement along the lines of "During (Month) (Year), SiteAdvisor revisied its rating from Red to (NewRating)." --Billpg 13:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The Clock Crew and other animator groups deserve their own articles.
Everytime somebody tries to create a StrawberryClock article or a Clock Crew article it gets shot on sight. There have been so many films featuring the Clocks though, that any reasonable person can see that covering them is not vanity. --  NERD42 [mailto:nerd42@gmail.com EMAIL ]  TALK  H2G2 UNCYC NEWS   17:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason is, the groups like Clocks and Locks are not individual artists nor very good artists when compared to other, more labor-intensive works like Adam Phillips or the Super Flash Bros. Maybe you could make an article about Strawberry Clock, given he's the most popular, but making an article for every single Newgrounds group is a waste of bandwidth. -Anony

Biased much, Anony? Adam Philips and Super Flash Bros. movies are better, more labour intensive? Thanks for making that decision for me you Nazi. I think you're not appreciating/missing the sheer magnitude of the Clock Crew. It has existed for over five years now, with well over 2500 members and thousands of movies. If all this does not warrant a page, start deleting three quarters of wikipedia.

Stickers
The "stickers" section was removed because it had no useful purpose other than to plug Newgrounds stickers.

Talented? not a biased word
In the begenning part of the article it's written "Tom is currently joined by a talented staff consisting of". Saying that they are talented is only an opinion not a fact, I haven't removed it so if anyone that is actually keeping an eye on this article and agrees with me please make the correction. --Dee&#39; 12:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I am removing it.--Jersey Devil 19:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Location, Location, Location!
Isn't Newgrounds based out of Philadelphia and not California? Tom Fulp has done some recent work on Alien Hominid in San Diego, but I can't remember ever reading anything about Oakland in the years I've been at the site.

Response: I edited the page to reflect that they are headquartered in Perkasie, as this is city in the address of Newgrounds.

Removal of spyware
(I've only just spotted this. Sorry for taking so long to respond. --Billpg 14:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC))


 * Out of the large number of page views and visitors, maybe 10-20 people, total, at most over a year and a half have complained or noted the spyware issue. That is under no circumstances significant enough to warrant the inclusion in this article. --HowardSF 23:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * When it happened to me, I had only visted three websites that day, and I could quickly eliminate the other two. Even then, I didn't start talking about it until I was sure of myself, having seen reports from others. Others might not have been so sure of the source.
 * Regardless of this, it happened, even if it only happened to a few. --Billpg 14:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No one is suggesting to the contrary. The contention is that the few that it happened to and noted it are so small in number to be insigificant. Again, with over 1 million users, 10 or 20 users is a minute fraction of one percent--hardly significant by any measure. --HowardSF 03:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Moreover, many of the sources fail to meet the criteria of WP:V (and WP:Vanity)--there is no method of verifing the third hand accounts of the forum post examples. --HowardSF 23:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * From the begining, I used words to the effect of "Complaints were made that..." and then quoted examples. This remains significant, people have been sent to prison on the basis of testimony alone. --Billpg 14:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if the posts were verifiable, this would still remain irrelevant to the insignificance of the section as a whole. --HowardSF 03:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I reiterate my previous point-- 3 forum topics out of well over 400,000 is in no way significant. Unless one can show how those ads were significant to the site in some tangible matter, as in a loss of traffic, a loss of membership, etc.,--something that would have a indesputable effect on the website, then the section should be removed.--HowardSF 23:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The act alone is (IMO) significant and worthy of comment. --Billpg 14:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It may have been a signficant event for you, but it is not a significant event for the subject of the article. Again, I'll reiterate: it is only significant if it had a notable, tangible impact to the subject. No one has been able to demonstrate that, therefore it is insignificant and not needed in the article. With the lack of demonstration on such an impact on the site, I become increasingly inclined to believe that this section was created as self-promotion for your blog, and as a use to broadcast your personal criticism of the subject. Any criticism section for any subject should list widely-held criticisms, or criticisms that influence the subject. For example, a criticism section for Wal*Mart would list such criticisms as its attitudes towards employees, its attitude towards competitors and mom and pops, etc. It would not include a complaint that a specific person has against a store, even if there were a few others that had similar complaints.--HowardSF 03:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Semi Protection?
I believe this page should be semi protected, seeing as there has been several cases of vandalism by Newgrounds users themselves, mainly those without accounts or made one to spam, any thoughts? http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=525000

Request has been put in to have this page semi-protected, we're waiting on admin to judge --Canadian-Bacon 18:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Star Syndicate
The star Syndicate day is not commonly Celebrated, so i removed it, the SS-DT 2 day is more well known and used.

The Star Syndicate Died, there next flash is there last

· You were had. That was just a publicity stunt. The Star Syndicate is still active on Newgrounds 86.18.244.141 15:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

BBS in need of it's own article?
well i've been searching around the BBS and i think it's big enouph for it's own article it has thousands of users and it's own awards/trends and is very heavely linked with the admins and is the main way for the NG community to communicate and it's a very big community. what are your thoughts? CartoonDiablo 13:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)cartoondiablo

Take the survey should the main article be re-created, stay deleted or be merged with newgrounds


 * The BBS section should be significantly smaller (see reasoning below), and the notable users and inside lingo sections should be removed, consistent with WP:V, WP:WEB, and WP:NOR.I'll not take action on the BBS section, other than to clean up and remove grammatical and spelling errors, until the vote is completed. However, I will remove the notable users and inside lingo section in consistent with the aforementioned policies. Moreover, the image of "Bedn" has an inappropriate license. [User:HowardSF|HowardSF]] 04:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

survey deadline September 25


 * Stay deleted.As 68.192.25.106 explained months ago, the chat and forums fall under WP:V and WP:WEB, and WP:NOR, so they shouldn't be in the article except as a brief mention, let alone a full, stand-alone article. Also, note that your recreation of the article lead to speedy deletion. For more info, see your talk page.--HowardSF 04:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Daily Collections should not go here
The Daily Collections part of this page should be removed. They are not a major part of Newgrounds. In fact, they are just the submissions of one flash artist out of hundreds that submit to Newgrounds. They have won little rewards and have received little attention on Newgrounds itself, and their reference here is not appropriate.

Use real names
We need to use real names in this article, not nicknames. Who is liljim? Using their online nicknames is not appropriate in an encyclopedia. I can probably find out their real names if I want to. Want me to?

Well stamper is Will Stamper I forget what liljim was and it never mentioned who ross was. CartoonDiablo 13:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)CartoonDiablo

Ross is Ross Snyder.

References and cleanup
I am interested in doing what I can to get the tags removed from this article. Right now, there are tags for references and cleanup.

The actually address of the NG HQ is in Glendale, Pennsylvania whatever vaule that may be.

References -- is there something that I am missing? We ought to be able to take the website's own word when it comes to how many users and submissions they have and to who has sued them. However, we could also say something like "by the website's account" if we want to be extremely picky, although I feel that this is not necessary.

Cleanup -- I have fixed many typos among other stuff. Something else in particular needs cleanup?


 * The article has no citations that are outside of the website itself. While we CAN cite the website, this is not optimal. The article is crufty to an extreme (Portal awards, Front page Icons, Site mascots have little relevence outside of the sites community).JBKramer 19:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

well "technicly" things such as forum respons are primary sources seeing as they are a first hand experence of what happened. 68.38.69.72 00:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)CartoonDiablo


 * No, "technicly" they're not. Read WP:REF. Mackan 06:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Archiving
I have moved all 2005 articles to archive so that this disussion page confroms to wikipedia size limits. Kc4 05:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Star Day?
Hey, does anyone know when Star Day USED to be celebrated? You don't need to add this info. And who deleted all the info that used to be here?

Section about "judging period"
I think a section should be added which explains how flash/audio submissions get submitted and what happens in the "judging period". Does anyone know how it's done exactly? Esn 10:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Restored Voting System Text and Proposal to Restore "Review" Section
It seemed to me that a large section of text was lost in this act of vandalization: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newgrounds&diff=75941484&oldid=75941367

Numerous acts of such vandalism as well as fake rvvs and some misguided real rvvs seem to have permanently buried the text in the history. I browsed the edits, their summaries, and the talk page archive for about a half hour with no reason given to take this text out, so I'm putting it back in. Please do not take any of it out without commenting here first.

Additionally, Mackan, I'm somewhat aggravated that you removed the whole section on reviews without any discussion here first. I originally wrote that section. In my absence, however, I think much of the information I added was removed and given a point of view that wasn't there previously.

Here is how it originally was written:


 * Only members are able to post reviews for submissions, however any visitor to the site is allowed to view past reviews of any surviving flash in the portal. Although Newgrounds encourages users to give only constructive feedback, reviews which feature unrelated advertising, spam, or outright verbal abuse frequently appear. To help control this, users can indicate whether they felt that a review was helpful, not helpful, or abusive. Reviews which garner a number of votes indicating them as abusive are directed to the attention of certain members called "review mods" who sort through them and punish the reviewers with temporary bans from reviewing, and, occasionally, deletion of all their reviews (including reviews that were not marked).

I think in this form, the information is in fact relevant as it pertains a) to the culture of Newgrounds users, b) to the system it employs, and c) to the powers of the moderators. I won't revert this section yet, however, if some time passes with no objections, I think I'll go ahead.

-- Hinotori(talk) 03:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for restoring this. It's very usefull information - I'm a Lv13 Newgrounds user myself and I still wasn't sure how everything worked.  So this definitely helped me out.  It's also, as you said, very relevant to the article and it is sad that this vandalism was not undone sooner. Esn 08:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point, the article is full with information that, while not being wrong, is all taken directly from Newgrounds (there are no secondary sources), and it's not the most relevant stuff that can be said about Newgrounds. The article doesn't need five paragraphs on how the voting system works; you can find that information on NG and it's only interesting for NG users. What should be in this article is all the media coverage NG has received for its controversial content. This is not a "NG user board", it's an encyclopedic article. Everything you have restored to the article has brought down the quality of it. Mackan 02:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is that this article should mention the media attention that certain individual submissions to Newgrounds have gotten, and say nothing about the fundamentals of how the website actually works? Somehow, I don't think that this will be very usefull to most people who come here.  An encyclopedia article should mention the fundamentals of what something is - the lack of these is what brought down the quality of the article.  I'm not sure why you think that it should be more important to mention media controversies over videos submitted to Newgrounds than to mention what the "nuts and bolts" are. To provide another example... if you have an article about television, would it be more logical to focus on describing the controversy that certain tv shows have caused, or the inner workings of a tv?  If you have an article about a film, is it more important to provide a description, history and plot outline or to focus on the critical reactions to it?  Both should be mentioned in a good article of course, but I believe that the priority should always be on the fundamentals.  Furthermore, I don't agree with your assertion that these details are only interesting to Newgrounds users, any more than if you had said that history articles are only interesting to historians.  The Internet Movie Database article, also about a website which bears some similarity to Newgrounds (in certain aspects) does a good job of describing how the website works.  This one should be no different.
 * -- Esn 03:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, Mackan, I'm a little worried by your approach to this issue overall. I tell you that it would have been polite to open up discussion before removing a certain section, and you tell me that another section should never have been there in the first place. I might take some offense at your comment that I "brought down the quality" of the article, but I'm going to assume good faith and hope that you'll do the same with regard to my edits. I do, however, thank you for not removing the information before discussion here.


 * Your point that there are no secondary sources seems largely irrelevant. The information in question is about how Newgrounds works. There's no real reason for it to appear many other places, nor is there any question regarding its accuracy. That has no bearing on its notability. I contend, along with ESN apparently, that it is notable because Newgrounds's automated portal is precisely the very reason the site has become popular. Newgrounds was the first, as far as I know, to develop a portal with the workings described (though there are now many copycats), and how it works is largely the reason for its success. You seem to have glossed over this.


 * Finally, your comment that the article doesn't need "five articles" seems to me to be a hefty exaggeration. The Newgrounds article in its entirety is fairly small to moderate as far as articles go, and the section in question is only three paragraphs long. I certainly agree with you that the media controversy that Newgrounds has generated deserves a place in the article. I might even agree that such information is more important than the information provided. That said, however, I see no reason that this information should not be included at all.
 * -- Hinotori(talk) 04:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not gonna answer every single one of your arguments because that would be a quite time consuming task... Yes, the article on Television should obviously be on the "nuts and bolts" but are you suggesting every single article on an internet page needs to have every painstaking detail of how the page works? Yes, the automated portal and how it has made NG what it is definately deserves some mention, but awards etc, are completely irrelevant. The reason I propose that the article should focus on NG controversies is because they are the reason the page is notable in the first place, and quite likely how people first hear about it.
 * It does matter that the information in the article cannot be supported by secondary references, please see deletion discussions on ArmorGames and CrazyMonkeyGames. Also official Wiki guidelines will clearly tell you so, can't remember the exact link but you google it.
 * Finally, I'd like you both to realise that, as you are long time users of Newgrounds, you have a very strong bias concerning the subject. Mackan 04:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about most people coming here because of Newgrounds scandals - nor of your assertion that if there were no scandals, Newgrounds would not be notable. For one thing, any website that has a million members is already notable enough to be included.  I would say that the awards section is in fact notable because it is an integral part of the voting system - when a flash artist submits a work, they hope above all to win one of the awards.  The submissions which win these awards are prominently displayed on the flash portal and the front page which ensures that they are viewed by more people.  Crucially, winning one of these awards goes a long way to getting a work noticed.  There are some animators whose fame today is directly attributable to the viewership gained by winning awards on Newgrounds (among them Adam Phillips, David Firth, James Farr and Robert Benfer).  The latter two are in the process of making feature films, one of which is being partially funded by Newgrounds.  There is also a console game, Alien Hominid, which started out as an in-house project by the Newgrounds team.
 * And yes, an article about a website should say just how exactly the website works, especially if the way that the website in question works is unique. You would not discuss how a hosting website works in an article about a hosting website, because there is already a page called Web hosting service which does this.  But for pages like Newgrounds, there is no interwiki link that can be conveniently placed to describe its structure.  This information is essential for understanding everything else.  To quote WP:NOT:
 * "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples."
 * Note the word "only". While what you suggest should be included, the guideline says that the basics must be covered first.  In order for the reader to understand the significance of any "controversy" or fame, he must understand the background.  An article should be more than a "checklist" of what a website is, but it should also be more than a collection of trivia and newsbits about the website in question. Esn 03:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)