Template talk:Anonymous and the Internet/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Anonymous and the Internet. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Reasons for creation

See Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica#navbox_proposal --Enric Naval (talk) 05:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed "natural enemies"

I just removed the "natural enemies" group since I dont think there are any sources on this. Z00r (talk) 10:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree w/ removal by Z00r (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

memes

the part "memes" is weird... "All your base are belong to us · Goatse.cx · Desu" - how is AYBABTU and Goatse.cx connected with Anonymous? both of them are not very connected with either 4chan or any other "anonymous" website as ytmnd --Have a nice day. Running 12:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That was a mistake from me. I got over-enthusiastic adding stuff. I think that AYBABTU is actually related to Newgrounds and not directly to Anonymous. "Desu" is used a lot on 4chan, but, again, not directly related to the topic of anonymous, "goatse" is used by anonymous as an image to attack sites, but the relation is too loose since everybody uses it. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What about Chocolate Rain? There are reliable sources (such as Mathew Ingram (2007-08-15). "Who is Tay Zonday?". The Globe and Mail. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)) that attribute its initial popularity to 4chan. Ayla (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It has the same problem as the other memes: it's not specifically related to Anonymous. That would belong on 4chan article as one more meme spread by them. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

YTMND

Hum.... I'm not sure about keeping this one on the template, maybe Walfulz is right on this one. I see that scientomogy.com lists them as a place to find Anonymous[1], but the "Scientology" entry on partyvan.info lists them as an entity separate from Anonymous, and ED's template on Anonymous does not list them --Enric Naval (talk) 04:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, from ED's entry on YTMND, it seems that it doesn't really qualify as reunion place for Anonymous. It did participate on a atack against scientology and other stuff, but it's more a place to be trolled than a real reunion place. I'll remove it now for lack of sources showing a real link. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think YTMND needs to be on there, mainly because most of their site are items from Anonymous and there is some overlap between the two groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.198.163 (talk) 11:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

We need at least one reliable source stating that so that we can add them to YTMND before updating the template. Blogs or personal observations from editors aren't considered (usually) good reliable sources for wikipedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed something awful

Most Something awful goons hate 4chan and anonymous.

Can someone confirm or deny this with sources, instead of editwarrying with this IP over the SA link? --Enric Naval (talk) 00:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Which is funny considering they're exactly like them. JuJube (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Continuing to add this template to irrelevant articles is trolling. you shouldn't create a template and tag it to every article vaugely associated with anonymous. Killhammer (talk • contribs) 04:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

so, it *is* associated, right? :D --Enric Naval (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about ALL the sites you have added this too. seriously this is abuse. Killhammer (talk) 04:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If I'm reading this correctly, you are saying that we shouldn't use the template on *any* page, because you don't like Anonymous, and that associating any page with Anonymous is an abuse, and you don't have any source that goons hate Anonymous, right? --~~

It should be added to 4chan, 7chan, 420chan and encyclopedia dramatica as anonymous make up the majority userbase of those sites. Killhammer (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of the last change I made? I made a new separate action for places where the actions are publitized and there are calls for action, and moved several links there --Enric Naval (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a fair compromiseKillhammer (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

TRUE STORY: 4chan was created by a SA Goon (moot), influenced by the Japanese site 2channel. --86.135.179.69 (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Oh, well, even if 4chan was created by a goon, it doesn't necessary follow that the rest of goons agree with that creation, or that they like the sort of people that hangs around that creation, or that they agree with ~~the moral values there~~ whatever passes as a moral value for Anonymous. Still, it's quite funny. Now we just need a reliable source for that so we can add it on Imageboard#4chan and piss off the guys at SA. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

HERE

"Not all the message boards celebrate the griefers in their midst: Kyanka finds griefing lame, as do many Goons and /b/tards. Nor do the griefers themselves all get along. Patriotic Nigras, /b/tards all, look on the somewhat better-behaved Goon community — in particular the W-Hats, a Second Life group open only to registered Something Awful members — as a bunch of uptight sellouts. The W-Hats disavow any affiliation with the "immature" and "uncreative" Nigras other than to ruefully acknowledge them as "sort of our retarded children." http://www.wired.com/gaming/virtualworlds/magazine/16-02/mf_goons?currentPage=2

remove SA. -Warsie/Star Wars Fan

How does this source show that SA forums are *not* related to Anonymous? It shows quite the opposite: that they are very closely related with some of the groups self-identifying with Anonymous, even calling one of them their children. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

This template mostly only relates to the English language Internet, there are other languages out there. 76.66.195.159 (talk) 07:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hum, that's because this is the english wikipedia? And because Anonymous is an english language phenomen? Do you have examples of uses of Anonymous on other languages? --Enric Naval (talk) 07:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Youtube

Why Youtube is listed here? It have nothing to do with Anonymous... it is only one of several distribution channels of Anonymous... --213.168.121.118 (talk) 08:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone added it because it's listed at Anonymous_(group)#Composition --88.26.169.227 (talk) 16:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

eBaum's World

Considering there is nothing about Anonymous in the article eBaum's World, eBaum's World should be removed from this template. Kingturtle (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Colour

Kinda my little opinion, but I feel the template should be green, not yellow, seeing that green is the traditional representation of the anonymous persona. [2] -- Zblewski |talk 22:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with that change. When I created the template I picked the color yellow at random. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Better? Cirt (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Could it be a bit brighter? :D To fit the color on the photo linked above --Enric Naval (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

How's that? Cirt (talk) 05:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Much better :) --Enric Naval (talk) 13:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Great. :) Cirt (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"Imageboard" is not a website

No more than "novel" is a book, or "action" a film. Website categories should be listed separately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.196.27.80 (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Done - moved to section: Terms. Cirt (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Epilepsy text has been changed

'course I would help. But vandals have tarnished that wish. Can an administrator help?--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 16:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

In short, the link of name "epilepsy forums" need to be pointed to Anonymous_(group)#Epilepsy_Foundation_forum_invasion --Enric Naval (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Cirt (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Link broken

The link to the Ebaum's controversy no longer exists. It should be changed from #Controversy to #Copyright_infringement, I believe. Thanks. --68.9.122.184 (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Made it just a link to the article itself, as the subsection names keep changing way too much. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Styling, syntax

There's no reason this template needs to override the {{navbox}} defaults for layout and styling. I've started a sandbox which contains a simplified version. If there aren't any concerns (or justifications for the style overrides that I've missed - according to #Colour the template colour was originally chosen at random) then I'll request editprotected. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The color was originally random, but it was later changed to a representative color for the topic (light green) --Enric Naval (talk) 09:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that this is important enough to warrant an override - the colour is not that strongly associated with the movement, and bright colours like that tend to be distracting. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you are right at that, the color is not strongly associated. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Disagree - the color was requested by someone else here on the talk page above. It's not bright and it is an unobtrusive color and presentation. Cirt (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The comment in question started with "kinda my little opinion", and the alternative given at that time was yellow rather than the navbox default. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes but Zblewski (talk · contribs) does have a point - it is the color most often used by the movement. Cirt (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't mentioned once in Anonymous (group). The navbox default is not meant to be overridden lightly - a simple preference for a colour which doesn't actually mean that it's really associated with the subject shouldn't really be enough. The goal here is to avoid rainbow-striped endnotes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"The navbox default is not meant to be overridden lightly" - says who? It is tailored appropriately to this specific topic, adds dynamism, and is not boring. Cirt (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

lol rainbow --Enric Naval (talk) 03:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like they came up with an easy solution for that one. Cirt (talk) 03:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The {{navbox}} documentation does, as I pointed out in the Trappatoni discussion. I don't think a colour key which very few readers are going to pick up on is worth overriding in this case. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Are there any Article-space pages using this {{Anonymous and the Internet}} template that currently have the same situation as the Trappatoni article? Cirt (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

YouTube is getting there, but that's besides the point. If templates don't override the styling on a whim (which is what's happened here) then we won't get into that situation in the future. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see you raising the same complaints at Template talk:You Tube. But at any rate, if and when it becomes a similar issue to Trappatoni, I much prefer the solution of collapsing the templates together on those individual pages only. Cirt (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm planning on raising it there as well. I don't consider leaving it until it's embarrassingly bad to be a good solution. The colour should be removed here, thus obviating the need to address it in future. The argument for keeping the colour is weak, and there doesn't appear to be much support for it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, the Trappatoni solution from this discussion is the best option to implement (if necessary on individual article-space pages) and still retain current style. Cirt (talk) 03:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous is very associated with green. The flags anonymous use are green, the logos that 4chan, 7chan, 420chan, etc, all are primarily green in color, and the original illustrative concept of anon (i.e. the ones pre-Guy Fawkes) use a man with a faceless, green head.-- Zblewski |talk 16:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The Baltimore City paper carries a photo of Anonymous holding a light green thingy with the image of Anonymous [3] --Enric Naval (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

3rd opinion

This is a 3rd opinion, an outside opinion meant to help. It should in no way be taken as authoritative and is simply meant to informally help to resolve a dispute. So for what it is worth, here are the two cents of someone who doesn't really care what color it is.

Based on the discussion it would seem that based on anecdotal evidence anonymous is associated with green. What comes to mind for me is the green Tor onion. If you could find a source that actually explicitly states this that might help resolve this portion of the dispute. On the flip side, this association of color does seem lost on most people in a way that sports colors, even for the non-fan, are not.

As for the color of the template, this is in many ways an aesthetical call. I personally do not find this green to be distracting. On the other hand, I tracked down (make sure to link, you spell the name wrong) the Trapattoni page and it is indeed hideous for all to see. It seems that this is a meta template question of whether templates should have a specific color associated with a particular thing or whether they should all be the standard generic light blue or whatever else you choose. Based on the Trapattoni page it could seem that one standard color might be a good idea. However, this represents a much broader decision. As long as sport's teams have templates associated with colors I do not see why anonymity should not as well. It seems that you are all striving for a consensus, but this is an either or question.

Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Resonse by Cirt

Thanks very much for providing this third opinion. Query: What do you think of the solution at Giovanni Trapattoni, that, if in the case of articles that have multiple templates with different colors, this template could be wrapped inside another collapsible template? Cirt (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not see any conversation on the Trapattoni page for a sandbox (I think that is what someone called a proposed template earlier). So I am going to assume that whatever you just described is already happening at that page, at which point I repeat: it is hideously distracting in its current form. Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Very well; I disagree, and I think the {{navbox}} documentation already warns against changing the template colours, but I've added them to the sandbox. Requesting sync to fix various minor syntax issues. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The sandbox looks fine to me, but considering the length of the discussion above just about the colour I will leave it until consensus for the change is confirmed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

As Thumperward (talk · contribs) has agreed to the color, I do not object to these other minor formatting changes at template:Anonymous and the Internet/sandbox. Cirt (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Tor? Hardly. Before Anon received its headless character, the personification was a suited man with a blank, green face with "No picture available" slammed onto where the eyes would be. How that happened to personify Anon is a little mysterious to me, but probably had more to do with 4chan's green leaves than the Tor onion (which is yellow, anyway). Oc t ane ^{[improve me?]} 11.04.09 0454 (UTC)

eBaum's World without a capitalised "e"

Since the template is on lockdown, I'll just have to write it here: the e in eBaum's isn't capitalised. That's it! --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 13:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Done, after I checked and realized the title of the article itself also starts with a lowercase "e". Cirt (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

YouTube

Must Youtube be included in this filth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.132.196 (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

By god, youtube has absolutely nothing to do with this whole topic of memes and internet "culture" if you can call it that. Just to clarify, the net went through basically three phases; The Early Years, ~1995 - 1999, which produced sites like Geocities and Newgrounds and isolated comedy sites like Maddox's, and when it was populated by mostly harmless, non-psychotic, autistic kids writing about LOTR on their geocities site, and Tom Fulp doing horrendously bad, yet hilarious, animations in Flash 3.0 on Newgrounds. Then came the middle era, which most of the now respected internet users became respected in, with sites like Something Awful, 4chan (offshoot of SA originally), and others . This also was the height of the old clan based, stereotypical pc shooter games like Battlefield 1942 and Counter Strike (1, not source). This era typically is glorified, and a lot of great stories are floating around about it. The most recent era, I like to call the Big Internet era. Starting around 2004 with youtube, this web 2.0 bullshit (pardon the language), started to take off, and corporations were attracted like moths to a lamp. This is the beginning of the introduction of normal culture to the internet. Some call it stupid, but really it's not much more so than what existed before. A few big problems with tracking internet pop culture, though, is that there really is no way of confirming any of this. Sites like the Internet Archive help, but good luck finding anything in there, with all it's terabytes of viagra ads and furry porn. Another issue is the "normalification", if you will, of the internet. Before about ~2005, most people on the internet were nerds or worse. The net was basically a refugee camp for those cast out of society. I think, though this shouldn't be taken as fact, that the "Old Internet", was really a generation of nerds who grew up together and that that generation is gradually either assimilating into society or else disappearing, and that with normal people taking over, what little evidence of history that existed will vanish. So basically, writing an article about specific sites is impossible, and the story of the internet is something for a sociologist to write a paper on , not a user edited encyclopedia. My greatest fear is that 15 years of history, and pretty much an entire parallel generation to Generation Y will be forgotten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.176.183 (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It's there because it's listed at Anonymous_(group)#Composition. See archived comment on same topic.

Hum, that section mixes "places where Anonymous hangs about" with "distribution channels of Anonymous". Maybe we should leave only the first type, and make a separate section for the second type (or remove them altogether) --Enric Naval (talk) 08:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hah, scratch that, we should remove Youtube after all. See this thoughtful comment about template guidelines. eBaum's World has a reasonable chance of containing some content about Anonymous, but there is no way in hell that Anonymous is going to get any sort of "substantial coverage" at the Youtube article.

I'm starting to get the point that many groups use Youtube for distribution, that it's not relevant that they use Youtube or Google videos, and that none of those groups goes and links Youtube in their navigation templates just because they use it. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed it, for future reference call an admin when you need to change a protected page by adding {{editprotected}} to the talk page. Prodego ^talk 03:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Something Awful

I'm sorry but Something Awful has absolutely nothing to do with Anonymous, really. By your definition of Anonymous (which basically applies to Chanology only and ignores the fact that it is not actually an organization) you're better listing digg than SA. Sam 09:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Something Awful has no relation to Anonymous or 4chan and its spin off sites/encyclopedias/whatever, except for the fact that 4chan was spawned by a frequent poster of the SA anime board many, many years back. The sites have no other links. Acatyes (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

2009 Iranian Election Protests

I would like to petition that the 2009 Iranian Election Protests be added to the Topics section of the template due to Anonymous's presence in helping the Protesters by providing such programs as Tor, and relaying information out of Iran to the general public. A source website would be Anonymous's very own site, http://iran.whyweprotest.net . Will someone please add that? Thank You! --cypherninja (talk) 05:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Unprotection

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{editrequest}} This is protected against policy and should be unprotected.--Cddoughty (talk) 17:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a valid unprotect request, does not explain what edit should be made. Momo san ^Gespräch 17:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not asking to edit it, I'm asking for it to be unprotected. I already tried this at WP:RFPP but admins keep deleting it.--Cddoughty (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sigh as getting it unprotected takes 10x longer even though it shouldn't be protected. The template is missing YouTube, Fark and Internet Relay Chat, my source is the 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment report. http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/10/1320211.--Cddoughty (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you consult the protecting admin Brandon about this. If you've already been refused at WP:RFPP then I'm not going to overrule. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for YouTube, Fark and Internet Relay Chat to be added as I said above.--Cddoughty (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Those things have nothing to do with the tempate. You've been denied again, did you not read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? Momo san ^Gespräch 18:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, I suggest you understand what counts as Anonymous. –túrian^patois 18:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not put up an edit protected request until after you have consensus for this edit. An off-hand mention in a leaked document hardly qualifies as a reliable source. –xeno^talk 18:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Uncyclopedia

Uncyclopedia should be linked to if ED has been linked. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No, Uncyclopedia doesn't have anything to do with Anonymous. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm ok if you say so. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Note how Uncyclopedia lacks an article on Chanology. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's proof that Uncyclopedia isn't affiliated with Anonymous. The Uncyclopedians (of 2008) barely knew what Anonymous was, and they didn't rally against Scientology. If fact, Uncyclopedias were more concerned about their rivalry with ED than helping Anonymous. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the edcuation! I too didnt know what the Anonymous was until I saw this page today. thanks. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 04:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)