Talk:Shoop (disambiguation)

On 18 June 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Shoop to Shoop (disambiguation). The result of the discussion was moved.

Untitled

Okay, this is getting silly. I happened to notice that "shoop" -- a commonly-used piece of Internet slang for "photoshopped" as verified by both UrbanDictionary and a Google search -- was not listed on Wikipedia. Given that lots of other Internet slang is listed, I added the additional definition to the shoop disambiguation page. It was reverted by user:Sesshomaru, who said it needed a citation. I've never seen a citation on a disambiguation page, but given that he insisted on repeatedly reverting it, I went and found a citation from a scientific website in which the term "shoop" was used to refer to the growing phenomenon of scientific dishonesty using digital photo-editing. This citation was removed with the admonition that citations are not used on disambiguation pages. Now user:Sesshomaru has reverted it AGAIN as a result of it not having a citation. Since the word "shoop" IS a commonly-used Internet slang word, what is necessary to get it added here? SmashTheState (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? I've discovered I really don't care. It's a miniscule, completely uncontroversial edit, and the denizens of Wikipedia have managed, as usual, to turn it into some kind of Sisyphian struggle. THIS is why Wikipedia is dying, and that 25%+ of all traffic (and growing) is now dedicated solely to Wikipedia bureaucracy. Casual contributors are made to feel as if they're sticking their faces into a steam-powered cheese grater so that a bunch of socially dysfunctional autists can lord it over an increasingly irrelevant kingdom of Byzantine rules and bureaucracy for the greater glory of King Jimbo. So, in short: you win. The article will remain unfixed and you may go back to arguing about Dragonball Z or whatever the hell it is you people do. SmashTheState (talk) 07:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

This is not "fine". The article doesn't even make a reference to the dab term. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you guys agree to something here without dancing around in circles on the article? If you keep it up, I'm going to lock the page. I haven't yet because I'm hoping that we can get some productivity here. Sound good? :P Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 01:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the other two editors aren't willing to comply, I'd prefer to see the page locked. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Locking it isn't a problem; I could probably go train a chimp to do that for me. But I don't think it's necessary because we're all mature and civilized people here. We can settle this without making the temptation physically impossible to reach. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 02:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever seems best I suppose. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is some serious OCD going on here. I think User:SmashTheState has provided ample evidence for 'shoop' being a word used for 'photoshopped'. He has even cited evidence. What are the objections exactly?MiltonP Ottawa (talk) 09:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What "evidence" do you see here? In order to warrant inclusion, the dab term has to be referenced. That's all. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of evidence. Urban Dictionary This for example.MiltonP Ottawa (talk) 09:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

photoshopping

i put it back in, mostly as a statement of intent. it seems that what is required to keep it on this disambig page is to get it in the photo manipulation article, as a close synonym for "photoshopping", then placing it here follows. is this correct? i'd like to know what's required to satisfy editors with an interest in this issue, rather than have a heated debate--Mongreilf (talk) 09:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Find a reference, add it to the article that mentions it, then (and only then) you may re-place that entry. Simple as that. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's what I suggested, but please remember be polite--Mongreilf (talk) 22:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read up on WP:ASSUME before performing stunts like this again. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in WP:MOSDAB or WP:DAB that requires references anywhere or mention in the target article. Relevant advice therefrom includes "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might use the "Go button", there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead." "Add a link only if the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context." Consensus on the talk page and on the article seems to be that photo manipulation is a reasonable disambiguation. I agree, and will restore it soon if there is no rule or consensus based objection.John Z (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:MoS:DP#Items_appearing_within_other_articles mentions mentioning, describing how pages which mention terms should be linked, but it does not say that disambiguated terms must be mentioned in the target article. So I restored the link.John Z (talk) 11:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Internet site

What Aboutthe internet site "Shoop da whoop.com"? Isnt that relatted? here is a link. http://www.Shoop-da-whoop.com/ Conkern65 (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Shoop (song) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]