Talk:Urban Dictionary/Archive 1

Archive 1

Chunk

I've removed a chunk of the story about sonyroolz and condensed it, halving the section. Ud terrorist 18:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Definition Count

In the "History section", it is written that "17.8 trillion definitions have been written for the dictionary.". Where is this cited from, and what does "definition" mean in that sense? It can mean either the number of different words in the dictionary or the number of definitions for words in the dicitionary. Because of the high number, I'm assuming the latter. But the matter is made more complicated by the fact that Urban Dictionary themselves say they have approx 3 million "definitions". This line needs to be both referenced and written in a clearer context. --kikumbob (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Source for Internet Slang?

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Internet_slang_phrases, Urban Dictionary is not considered a reliable s ource for Internet slang. It is expunged from their official list of reliable sources. In addition, any Internet slang word/phrase at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_slang_phrases must have a reliable source. So any slang that references Urban Dictionary is immediately deleted from the list. I think you should drop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Internet_slang_phrases and correct these guys. They obviously know nothing about Urban Dictionary and don't understand the definition of reliable sources. Or am I missing something? Magonaritus 20:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the Urban Dictionary a reliable source for non-Internet slang? I.e. [1]. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)::UD is not reliable in the sense that you can take any definition as authoritative. Some definitions are so poorly written that they can easily be misinterpretted. A big reason why UD is not reliable for Wikipedia purposes is that any editor with a point of view can make a UD entry to support it.

Italic text

UD is a reliable source of slang meanings on the whole though, especially for words with multiple entries. It's never failed me yet. Ghosts&empties 13:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors claiming anything to not be a reliable source is hilarious! ButteredToast 07:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

So I would ask, is UD reliable when used as one of many references? For instance, an article that uses UD as one reference for the topic's definition while using other resources through the article that give basically the same jist? Buyer beware? Reliable with a grain of salt? What's the general feeling nowadays? (For that matter, can anyone point me to a few articles that currently use UD in references?) Thanks! VigilancePrime (talk) 07:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Not far from the truth considering anyone can edit urban dictionary as a comment. It is more of a commenting board then a dictionary.--207.68.235.128 (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality?

The last sentence rather brings the neutrality of the article into question and is unnecessary: "But, most definitions are rather opinionated and not very useful." Should be removed

Then do it. If it's that clear, you don't need our permission. Master Deusoma 00:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

List of 'urban elite'?

Should a short list of the user-names of the past Urban Elite be placed on the article? I've been an observer of UD for a long time, in fact I was one of the Urban Elite... I stopped posting after the site pretty much collapsed from opinionated filthly and poor submission control.

I fear a list would spiral out of control and become very diluted with the names of everyone who wants to give themselves or their friends a shout out. There isn't really a point to having a list other than for vanity purposes, and if there were to be one it would have to be tightly controlled so that every urbanelite fulfilled certain criteria (x No. of definitions, mainly thumbs up/high stars, mentioned by other authors)- Vaginal JJ the No.1 UD terrorist

New site layout

Urban Dictionary has a new layout at the site. A screenshot should be taken, uploaded and added to the article.

Also, I think the article should include the addition of Urban Dictionary's search function in Mozilla Firefox (type "slang x" into the address bar of Firefox with "x" replaced by the word you want to look up.)

Opera has supported Urban Dictionary search via search.ini customization for more then a year. Both Opera and Firefox should be included. 212.200.134.12 21:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

It looks like this was at "Urban Dictionary", then got moved to "UrbanDictionary.com" (properly), and then was cut-and-paste moved to its current title, leaving its history at "UrbanDictionary.com". It seems to me that it should have stayed at "Urban Dictionary". Ethan0 04:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• support (created) Ethan0 04:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• support 24.6.134.43 05:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Move completed

There was no objections so UrbanDictionary have now been moved to Urban Dictionary, I also merged the edit history from UrbanDictionary.com, so all the relevant history is now located at Urban Dictionary (minus some redirect and move revisions). --Sherool (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Wieners

Someone has (oh so humorously) put the word "weiners" in one of the later sections repeatedly. I'd take it out, but I don't know what's supposed to be there. Someone please do.

Problem solved --Brandon (TehBrandon) 15:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

Why is there little to no mention of how so much of Urban dictionary is devoted to petty flame wars that belong on forums, and the severe amount of definitions that are nothing more than pure hate speech?

Indeed. The prime reason I stopped going there was that almost every single entry is full of contradictory entries, like the war at the definitions for the words "Windows" and "Linux". Master Deusoma 00:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

WTF would anyone go to Urban Dictionary for definitions of 'Windows' or "linux'?

Yeah I think the article could REALLY benefit from more in depth discussion of the quality control problems of the sight and the proliferation of stupid "definitions" there.

Because that sort of criticism amounts to petty flaming and has no place in a Wikipedia article. ButteredToast 07:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

How is that "petty flaming"? Don't be so dismissive please, it doesn't help anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.5.92.6 (talk) 03:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

urban dictionary is 1337.. people are sick of hearing over 9000 people whine about it. u don't hear people whining about wiki on UB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Over9000mudkipz (talk • contribs) 23:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This will become a contradictory Wikipedia article if we say their hate terms are all described without hate and that they are filled with hate speech. 173.183.69.134 (talk) 03:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Graffiti Wall

The link to the "graffiti wall" on the front page of urbandictionary.com disappeared a couple of weeks ago (the page is still accessible, only the link itself is gone). Anyone know why? If this is a permanent change then someone should probably edit the entry to reflect that, but I'm not sure why exactly it vanished. NighTrekr 19:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Commercial?

Why is it commercial? Isn't it a free site? --82.101.143.12 20:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

They sell ads and T-shirts.

They are called banners, they contain links that take you to sites that sell t-shirts. Also, they dont sell ads, people pay them to show their banners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.255.9 (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Quality control is uneffective

This article needs a section on criticism. The quality control on UD is nonexistent with most definitions expressing the point of view of 13 year old white American adolescents. The most popular definitions on Korean, Muslim, etc. are blatantly racist/xenophobic and do not belong on a website dedicated to slang terms. The word Muslim is not a slang word, neither is Korean, Arab, Black person, etc. the wikipedia article concerning this website should address these issues. So should the website, but i don't think that will happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.5.92.6 (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

We can add a criticism section if (and only if) reliable sources can be found. Adding such a section without these sources borders on original research and could also be a Point-of-View problem. Sasha Callahan 03:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, seriously? "Uneffective" is not a word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.254.14 (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Your face isn't a word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.231.37.93 (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

How about we link the definitions?--207.68.235.128 (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Here r my thoughts: 1 They have better quality management than Wikipedia, considering their definitions need to pass a vote instead of just being approved by some internet addicts whom somehow have power in Wikipedia. The xenophobia probably has nothing to do with being "white," or "adolescent," (unless actually reliable sources state so) but may be just due to the collective narcissism common within many regions in North America. 2 Xenophobia in the website should be described in detail, but it shouldn't be implied it is anyhow related to the absence of unnecessary "quality control", unless there are many actually reliable sources with proof based on well executed experiments(I doubt these exist). I do not understand why we somehow believe all of any website's problems are due to a lack of totalitarian-style control. 173.183.69.134 (talk) 03:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

PS: the "uneffective" was probably supposed to be "ineffective" 173.183.69.134 (talk) 03:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Journal article

If someone wants to eventually get rid of the "missing citations" sticker, there's at least one journal article that could be used as a source: Damaso, John; Colleen Cotter (2007). "UrbanDictionary.com". English Today. 23 (2): pp. 19–26. doi:10.1017/S0266078407002040. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

date created

wikipedia page says the site began in 2001 linked article (http://dwb.sacbee.com/content/lifestyle/story/14117015p-14946256c.html) says it started in 1999 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danohuiginn (talk • contribs) 16:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Cyberbullying/ targeting individuals

It says in the quality control section there are no rules against this, however when I do that voluntary editing queue thing it says first names are allowed, but nothing more. Surely this does not mean there are no rules/systems to prevent it.

Who (IP etc..) wrote this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.144.251.120 (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

UD in other languages?

Just curious... is there anything like Urban Dictionary for any languages besides English? (Hey, web entrepreneurs... hint, hint). 69.131.76.118 (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

People define words in whatever language they like. One can expect to find common and colorful vulgarities in Spanish and other languages. It's defacto allowed, and might even not be against the UD rules. --128.119.17.249 (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In Brazilian Portuguese: dicionarioinformal.com.br. -- 201.69.46.154 (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Why "urban"?

Why is the term "urban" used in the proper noun, "Urban Dictionary"? --71.146.11.48 (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

See the very first line of the lead section: Urban Dictionary is a Web-based dictionary of slang words and phrases that documents the language of urban cultures and subcultures. Follow the urban culture link for more information. -- Atama^chat 22:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

A fist full of rewrite

Took a stab at fixing the unsourced statements, weasel words and general UD hate, which turned into a fairly extensive rewrite. It's better but still not good. The "Quality control" section is mostly from the editor guidelines which are not publicly viewable, so... yeah. Meh. Anyway, it's better than it was. --squirrel (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete

This article is irrelevant and a self-publicity --201.212.199.133 (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

A snowballed AfD suggests otherwise. -- Atama^chat 22:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Citing Urban Dictionary

Where are we currently at? Is it acceptable to cite Urban Dictionary in a Wikipedia article? The article I have done so for is Admiral Ackbar, for the infamous line "It's a trap". The citation URL leads to an entry with two definitions, both of which support the link to the Star Wars character. It is also not the only citation I have found. So, does it hold water? --Ifrit (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think this is really the place to ask if UD would be considered a RS. That being said, it's extremely doubtful that UD would be considered a reliable source (they don't have any oversight or editorial processes). See: WP:RELIABLE DP76764 04:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Quotation marks

i think this page uses quotation marks way to often. i took most of them out. the first line read that urban dictionary was: a web-based dictionary of slang "words" and "phrases."

Im guessing the original author added to qoutation marks to indicate the manufactured, unorthodox, or unestablished nature of the subjects defined. but it seems unnessesary since the words are qualified as slang already. my other deletions of qoutation marks follow similiar thinking Eric Forest (talk)

Some good faith edits

The page has become full of unnecessary links, to articles such as Up, Down, and In. Just pointing this out to anyone who has time to remove them. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 02:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)