Jump to content

Talk:Imageboard/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

7chan

...redirects here, yet there is no mention of it in the page.

90.196.48.52 (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, noticed that too. 7chan's one of the better ones - why isn't it mentioned? --StalinUpstaged (talk) 04:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

...define "better." 169.231.38.39 (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a reason that it's called "Premium Content Network" —Preceding unsigned comment added by StalinUpstaged (talk • contribs) 07:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have just added 7chan to the wiki page and it needs work but I hope what I have provided with the help of google will work for now. Fix what is false and what does not fit in the description I will be making changes when I can.

I don't know why wikipedia staff keeps removing 7chan because it has a really interesting history mainly because it caused the first major 4chan migration. Signed ~Yusheec (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

If you can find WP:Reliable Sources surrounding 7chan, then go ahead and add it to the article. Alcherin (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

An interesting article from looks like a reliable source

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/12/limiting-the-damage-from-cultures-in-collision/ It talks a lot about how discourse is affected by imageboards, I'm not going to make any specific suggestions, but I think it's worth a couple sentences of so. HalfHat 22:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Cite note 20

Needs to be removed, 8 chan doesn't allow content that breaks U.S. Law, child porn is extremely illegal and therefore isn't allowed, that citation is extremely biased against 8chan and isn't even accurate. by including it you've lowered the quality of this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumblebritches57 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Imageboard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Dvach

This imageboard is quite popular to be in this article. The third (first in Europre) image board of the world in terms of posting speed. If you do not know about it, these are your problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.252.72.139 (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Wizardchan

I had removed wizardchan from the list of imageboards because I didn't see any reason why it should be included, given what's currently listed alongside it. All of the sites listed have been important to the historical development of imageboards, or are especially active, but wizardchan is neither, and no longer exists as relevant to the information or citation given in the article (the site shut down in late 2014 and has been succeeded by a few imageboards (some now dead) and a few 8chan boards, none of which are particularly noteworthy). Also, the citation given alludes to the existence of the site, but doesn't discuss its importance as an imageboard. I am wondering what warrants wizardchan's inclusion in the article, but not lainchan, 7chan, or shrekchan's inclusion, among many others? Stackguy (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Per @Rhoark:'s edit summary, WP:NNC. One can make the argument that WP:UNDUE applies in mentioning Wizardchan along the other more significant imageboards mentioned in the list, and therefore shouldn't be included.
shrekchan was WP:UNSOURCED, edited by User:Yusheec who seemed to have a WP:COI (being a self-declared owner of a shrekchan successor)
I removed lainchan seeing it only had a primary source - following the (non-policy) WP:IS "If Wikipedia is, as defined by the three key content policies, an encyclopaedia which summarises viewpoints rather than a repository for viewpoints, to achieve this goal, articles must demonstrate that the topic they are covering has been mentioned in reliable sources independent of the topic itself" - in the process of being WP:BOLD. Citing WP:NOTABLE was an error that I made as I didn't realize that WP:NNC existed. Alcherin (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Imageboard. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Imageboard. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Notability of Lainchan for inclusion

I don't think Lainchan should be in this article, without a reliable source supporting its inclusion for notability. I tried removing it with Special:Diff/867111154, but @Boothsift reverted me with Special:Diff/867111329 while mentioning he/she "may be wrong" about it being "okay".

I noticed @Alcherin had already removed it in 2016: Special:Diff/716895130. It was added back again by @Resentcontributor with Special:Diff/845618163 (which now happens to be indef-blocked as a vandalism-only account). 84.250.17.211 (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Soyjak.party/Soyjaks.party

Why was this section removed? Considering the fact it is the 2nd largest English speaking imageboard. SootKuzDollFroot (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has minimum sourcing standards, which you can find at WP:V and WP:RS. The section was completely unsourced. MrOllie (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Badly sourced lists

Since Mr IP is having trouble opening a discussion themselves, I'll start: Not a single one of those sources meets WP:RS, they are all self published, primary sources. Wikipedia is not meant to host lists of nonnotable software or software forks. To cover any of that we would need reliable, secondary sources. MrOllie (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The software noted in the lists are notable and have a long lineage to most imageboards today. This section has survived quite a long time until the "soyjak.party" thing and then you seemingly wiped it out despite it providing value to other users. 86.2.20.23 (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
To make my point more clearer: I think the history of imageboard software is very important to understanding imageboards, which is why it should remain on the page despite the lack of secondary sources. 86.2.20.23 (talk) 00:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
If there are no secondary sources, the software is not 'notable' as wikipedia defines it.. Per WP:UNDUE we don't make lists of stuff based on primary sourcing. Also, you're over the 3 revert rule, you should self-revert. - MrOllie (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
While it may not be notable enough to have its own page, the software revolving around an imageboard definitely deserves a section. 86.2.20.23 (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
On Wikipedia we don't ignore our core policies because somebody thinks it is "very important" or "deserves a section". If you feel strongly about it bring sources that aren't complete rubbish. MrOllie (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
In my opinion, if you go around removing massive chunks of text that have existed for a long time in an article without any issues because they're only primary sourced you are editing in bad faith. I would like to see the 'core policy' where you can't have primary sources for software. 86.2.20.23 (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Personal attacks aren't going to help. I've been linking policies all along, click on the blue text. MrOllie (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
I am not personally attacking you. I think while you may be editing with good intentions, you may be going overboard here. Do you really think this site would be improved if every section with primary sources were to be removed? 86.2.20.23 (talk) 00:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Also please don't edit your comments, just make a new one. It's harder to follow. 86.2.20.23 (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
(and while I have been reading through these pages, I haven't found anything that quite matches what you said) 86.2.20.23 (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
I have edited only comments which have not yet had replies, which is standard practice on Wikipedia. You have repeatedly called me a vandal and now have accused me of editing in bad faith, those are obviously personal attacks. MrOllie (talk) 00:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, but you must not have seen my reply because it changed after I refreshed a few times. 86.2.20.23 (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Reviewing the talk page history, that is simply not true. MrOllie (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Then I must just not have seen it, my apologies. 86.2.20.23 (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
"A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."
"Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them"
"Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them."
With this in mind, I believe the list correctly uses primary sources (and even some secondary sources!) 86.2.20.23 (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Those cherry picked statements do not reflect Wikipedia practice. With that said, I'm done responding here for a bit, since I prefer not to engage with hostile IPs who are making personal attacks, I imagine someone else will be along to continue the conversation. By way of closing I will once again mention that you are in violation of the 3 revert rule, as you were warned at your talk page. MrOllie (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you feel I have personally attacked you. I didn't mean to come off that way. However, I don't agree that I've cherry picked statements, but have just quoted the most relevant ones in the pages you linked. 86.2.20.23 (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
I would also like to mention the only section you left was the one that has no citations. Will you remove that? 86.2.20.23 (talk) 01:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

"Danbooru" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Danbooru 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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 18 § Danbooru until a consensus is reached. 65.92.244.127 (talk) 05:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

"Booru" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Booru 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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 18 § Booru until a consensus is reached. 65.92.244.127 (talk) 05:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

regarding Krautchan

I'm not sure if this is relevant to the Wikipedia, but the end of Krautchan and the beginning of Kohlchan as successor was not that simple as it looks in the article. We were looking for a new home and in this process we considered many possible successor boards. For example, the /kc/ sub-board on 8chan. Although Kohlchan was founded very quickly, a huge amount of us (maybe even the majority) ended up on the german imageboard Ernstchan which was used in the past as an alternative when KC was temporary offline. The fact that EC also had an english /int/ sub-board helped a lot with the immigration since our international community is very important to us.

After a while it became obvious that a big part of our KC community had huge political and philosophical differences with the administration of EC which led to many bans and a large shitstorm that took place on /int/. At the end of it, the admins of EC took the site offline and we all went to Kohlchan. I'm not adding this without feedback by other people since I'm not sure if this type of internal drama is relevant and imageboards have the tendency to not provide much source for these type of claims. 95.222.25.219 (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Why is 4chan and 8kun the most controversial imageboards of all time?

It's because of it's users being more focused on political incorrectness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takeshi Ishii (talk • contribs) 10:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imageboard/Archive_2&oldid=1231446758"