Talk:Fark/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

POV and reflist

I admit, I am new to editing Wiki entries.

The references portion of this article contains a link to someone's personal gripe with the owner of Fark and the site's admin moderation of the forum. Yes, I am a regular visitor and contributer to Fark, and yes, I have issues with the way their forums are handled, but that is my "personal gripe" and should be left from this entry. So I can't help but call into question the use of that "reference", since it really doesn't offer anything useful to this article, not does it give any valid information since it is clearly just a soapbox for some disgruntled individual who was banned.

Before I attempt to edit that reflist myself (still can't quite figure out where it points to and how to edit it), I would like to suggest others perhaps give that link a good read and see if it is just a useless gripe, or are such links considered useful on a Wiki entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unchellmatt (talk • contribs) 19:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to the filters removing "names of sites that criticize fark" for 2 reasons. 1: It is inaccurate, as the forum filters are not what's doing this, but rather a permissible links script independent of the forums. Also the removal of submissions, as is being complained about in the references page, is an act done by Admin intervention, NOT by an automatic filter. This information/complaint belongs in a criticism section, if at all. It is irrelevant tot he "Fark Filters" segment. Mattwilkins (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to the filters removing "names of sites that criticize fark" for 2 reasons. 1: It is inaccurate, as the forum filters are not what's doing this, but rather a permissible links script independent of the forums. Also the removal of submissions, as is being complained about in the references page, is an act done by Admin intervention, NOT by an automatic filter. This information/complaint belongs in a criticism section, if at all. It is irrelevant tot he "Fark Filters" segment. Mattwilkins (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I added the NPOV template. Several sections are written from a negative POV, for example the sections on the site redesign and on fark.tv. I know there's been an edit war going on over this article, I'm hoping that adding the template can help draw in some new blood to help write the article from a more neutral POV. Umbralcorax 14:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, or in some cases it's clear there is a consensus, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. Better yet, edit the article yourself with the improvements in place. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted. Seeems like consensus, in this case.Jjdon (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Fark.com on Jeopardy

I was watching Jeopardy this evening, and one of the categories was "Fark.com Headlines". I can't find any information about this anywhere, not even on Fark.com itself! Was I seeing things? 24.91.111.232 00:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be right. I am astonished. -Joshuapaquin 02:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you so much!! 24.91.111.232 03:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I should also point out there is now a thread about this [1] on Fark.com. Guess I should get over it and resubscribe to TF so I'm up to date. Persephone3 03:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability

I agree with the notability tag. Other Web sites of this nature have been denied in the past citing notability. It seems as though there's a double standard that should be resolved. Either all random Web sites are allowed (Fazed.net and such) or none of them is allowed. 69.243.126.97 (talk) 09:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You might benefit from reading WP:ALLORNOTHING. Also note that new topics should be started at the bottom of the talk page. Ayla (talk) 13:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing the tag. Either nom for deletion or leave it off. --Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 19:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears that similar tag as been readded by another editor and subsequently deleted a couple of times now. First was a CSD (diff), next a {{notability}} template (diff), and has readded it since (diff). I feel as though this subject meets notability guidelines for web content (covered by reliable secondary sources, received awards). However, you feel it does not, please state why and/or open an articles for deletion discussion. Otherwise, it would seem that consensus is currently that the article is notable. --slakr^\ talk / 07:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed the notability tag. The site maintains a current listing of press mentions and so forth [2] and a quick Google News search turned up articles mentioning as far back as 2002 [3].—Wasabe3543 —Preceding comment was added at 08:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Fark.ru

I'd like the article to mention the related site fark.ru - who runs it? Is it the same team? Did they license all the fark.com code to a Russian who runs it? Did a Russian copy and paste all the fark.com code to create fark.ru? Why does Pravda link to fark.ru all the time? This is mysterious (to me) and I think the article would benefit by mentioning it. Tempshill (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

farkisms and cliches

I have reverted the recent [re]addition of the farkisms and cliches section to the article. There are some serious citation issues, and the origin of many of them as having originated on fark is questionable. Wikipedia is also not an indiscriminate collection of information. This should be discussed and consensus reached before the section is added (see the talk page archives for previous discussion on this topic). Dr. Cash (talk) 02:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Shadowban

Regarding my reversion of the anonymous editor adding the 'shadowbanning' comments to the article, this has been discussed before. There continues to be no valid, reliable sources on this practice; only some random blog posts, apparently from disgruntled users who have been shadowbanned. On another note, this "shadowbanning" thing isn't a bad idea to reduce things like vandalism and bogus comments; perhaps Wikipedia should consider something similar? Dr. Cash (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Notable Farkers

I find it somewhat amusing that someone added me as a notable Farker and someone else removed me. Is there some criteria for what makes someone notable or not? Right now it seems pretty arbitrary. P.S. I don't really care that I'm not a notable Farker. Just curious since I Watch this page. aeonite (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's any criteria or anything that deems someone a "notable farker", but most wikipedia articles stick to standards of only listing known celebrities in these types of situations. Although in this page's situation, most of those entries don't seem to be backed up by any sort of reliable sources, so it's all arbitrary. But then again, this whole article is a total disaster area and in need of a major rewrite anyway,... Dr. Cash (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

SomethingAwful photoshop contest

I'm not experienced enough with Wikipedia to know how to source this, but the "friendly rivalry" and photoshop contest with SomethingAwful was a prank against Fark on the part of SomethingAwful. Reading through http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=116645 makes this pretty clear, but nobody ever comes right out saying so. Note that the Fark entries all scored "0", and the comment at the bottom of the contest page: "thank space nerd Wil Wheaton for taking the time to judge each and every entry and for getting me the results on time so that I could run this article." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.151.210 (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)