Talk:Newgrounds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Web Animation WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Web Animation. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.


Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] The Clock Crew and other animator groups deserve their own articles.

Everytime somebody tries to create a StrawberryClock article or a Clock Crew article it gets shot on sight. There have been so many films featuring the Clocks though, that any reasonable person can see that covering them is not vanity. --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  17:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason is, the groups like Clocks and Locks are not individual artists nor very good artists when compared to other, more labor-intensive works like Adam Phillips or the Super Flash Bros. Maybe you could make an article about Strawberry Clock, given he's the most popular, but making an article for every single Newgrounds group is a waste of bandwidth. -Anony

Biased much, Anony? Adam Philips and Super Flash Bros. movies are better, more labour intensive? Thanks for making that decision for me you Nazi. I think you're not appreciating/missing the sheer magnitude of the Clock Crew. It has existed for over five years now, with well over 2500 members and thousands of movies. If all this does not warrant a page, start deleting three quarters of wikipedia.

It's a sad day when a guy can't express his opinion without being compared to Hitler. I'm not the one deleting your page over and over, so calm down and deal with it.

How labor-intensive a work of art is is not objective criteria for deciding whether the Clock Crew merits coverage. The reason they should get covered is because of the impact they have had on the community and other movies.

I think I will try to write an article on StrawberryClock. But I really think it makes more sense to write a "Clock Crew" article that mentions StrawberryClock but, other than that, shouldn't mention very many other individual clocks by name. --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  00:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL kisses NPOV goodbye --69.243.255.130 03:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
...groups like Clocks and Locks are not individual artists nor very good artists when compared to other, more labor-intensive works like Adam Phillips or the Super Flash Bros

That isn't NPOV. Besides, notability shouldn't be defined by subjectively comparing people with The Brothers Chaps or LegendaryFrog. --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  05:53, 29 November 2006

it doesn't matter how good the art or animation is, it's just that this is such a vast organization that exists, and existance is all that matter when it comes to encyclopedic value. (UTC)

[edit] Section about "judging period"

I think a section should be added which explains how flash/audio submissions get submitted and what happens in the "judging period". Does anyone know how it's done exactly? Esn 10:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restored Voting System Text and Proposal to Restore "Review" Section

It seemed to me that a large section of text was lost in this act of vandalization: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newgrounds&diff=75941484&oldid=75941367

Numerous acts of such vandalism as well as fake rvvs and some misguided real rvvs seem to have permanently buried the text in the history. I browsed the edits, their summaries, and the talk page archive for about a half hour with no reason given to take this text out, so I'm putting it back in. Please do not take any of it out without commenting here first.

Additionally, Mackan, I'm somewhat aggravated that you removed the whole section on reviews without any discussion here first. I originally wrote that section. In my absence, however, I think much of the information I added was removed and given a point of view that wasn't there previously.

Here is how it originally was written:

Only members are able to post reviews for submissions, however any visitor to the site is allowed to view past reviews of any surviving flash in the portal. Although Newgrounds encourages users to give only constructive feedback, reviews which feature unrelated advertising, spam, or outright verbal abuse frequently appear. To help control this, users can indicate whether they felt that a review was helpful, not helpful, or abusive. Reviews which garner a number of votes indicating them as abusive are directed to the attention of certain members called "review mods" who sort through them and punish the reviewers with temporary bans from reviewing, and, occasionally, deletion of all their reviews (including reviews that were not marked).

I think in this form, the information is in fact relevant as it pertains a) to the culture of Newgrounds users, b) to the system it employs, and c) to the powers of the moderators. I won't revert this section yet, however, if some time passes with no objections, I think I'll go ahead.

-- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 03:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for restoring this. It's very usefull information - I'm a Lv13 Newgrounds user myself and I still wasn't sure how everything worked. So this definitely helped me out. It's also, as you said, very relevant to the article and it is sad that this vandalism was not undone sooner. Esn 08:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
You're missing the point, the article is full with information that, while not being wrong, is all taken directly from Newgrounds (there are no secondary sources), and it's not the most relevant stuff that can be said about Newgrounds. The article doesn't need five paragraphs on how the voting system works; you can find that information on NG and it's only interesting for NG users. What should be in this article is all the media coverage NG has received for its controversial content. This is not a "NG user board", it's an encyclopedic article. Everything you have restored to the article has brought down the quality of it. Mackan 02:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that this article should mention the media attention that certain individual submissions to Newgrounds have gotten, and say nothing about the fundamentals of how the website actually works? Somehow, I don't think that this will be very usefull to most people who come here. An encyclopedia article should mention the fundamentals of what something is - the lack of these is what brought down the quality of the article. I'm not sure why you think that it should be more important to mention media controversies over videos submitted to Newgrounds than to mention what the "nuts and bolts" are. To provide another example... if you have an article about television, would it be more logical to focus on describing the controversy that certain tv shows have caused, or the inner workings of a tv? If you have an article about a film, is it more important to provide a description, history and plot outline or to focus on the critical reactions to it? Both should be mentioned in a good article of course, but I believe that the priority should always be on the fundamentals. Furthermore, I don't agree with your assertion that these details are only interesting to Newgrounds users, any more than if you had said that history articles are only interesting to historians. The Internet Movie Database article, also about a website which bears some similarity to Newgrounds (in certain aspects) does a good job of describing how the website works. This one should be no different.
-- Esn 03:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


First of all, Mackan, I'm a little worried by your approach to this issue overall. I tell you that it would have been polite to open up discussion before removing a certain section, and you tell me that another section should never have been there in the first place. I might take some offense at your comment that I "brought down the quality" of the article, but I'm going to assume good faith and hope that you'll do the same with regard to my edits. I do, however, thank you for not removing the information before discussion here.
Your point that there are no secondary sources seems largely irrelevant. The information in question is about how Newgrounds works. There's no real reason for it to appear many other places, nor is there any question regarding its accuracy. That has no bearing on its notability. I contend, along with ESN apparently, that it is notable because Newgrounds's automated portal is precisely the very reason the site has become popular. Newgrounds was the first, as far as I know, to develop a portal with the workings described (though there are now many copycats), and how it works is largely the reason for its success. You seem to have glossed over this.
Finally, your comment that the article doesn't need "five articles" seems to me to be a hefty exaggeration. The Newgrounds article in its entirety is fairly small to moderate as far as articles go, and the section in question is only three paragraphs long. I certainly agree with you that the media controversy that Newgrounds has generated deserves a place in the article. I might even agree that such information is more important than the information provided. That said, however, I see no reason that this information should not be included at all.
-- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 04:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not gonna answer every single one of your arguments because that would be a quite time consuming task... Yes, the article on Television should obviously be on the "nuts and bolts" but are you suggesting every single article on an internet page needs to have every painstaking detail of how the page works? Yes, the automated portal and how it has made NG what it is definately deserves some mention, but awards etc, are completely irrelevant. The reason I propose that the article should focus on NG controversies is because they are the reason the page is notable in the first place, and quite likely how people first hear about it.
It does matter that the information in the article cannot be supported by secondary references, please see deletion discussions on ArmorGames and CrazyMonkeyGames. Also official Wiki guidelines will clearly tell you so, can't remember the exact link but you google it.
Finally, I'd like you both to realise that, as you are long time users of Newgrounds, you have a very strong bias concerning the subject. Mackan 04:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure about most people coming here because of Newgrounds scandals - nor of your assertion that if there were no scandals, Newgrounds would not be notable. For one thing, any website that has a million members is already notable enough to be included. I would say that the awards section is in fact notable because it is an integral part of the voting system - when a flash artist submits a work, they hope above all to win one of the awards. The submissions which win these awards are prominently displayed on the flash portal and the front page which ensures that they are viewed by more people. Crucially, winning one of these awards goes a long way to getting a work noticed. There are some animators whose fame today is directly attributable to the viewership gained by winning awards on Newgrounds (among them Adam Phillips, David Firth, James Farr and Robert Benfer). The latter two are in the process of making feature films, one of which is being partially funded by Newgrounds. There is also a console game, Alien Hominid, which started out as an in-house project by the Newgrounds team.
And yes, an article about a website should say just how exactly the website works, especially if the way that the website in question works is unique. You would not discuss how a hosting website works in an article about a hosting website, because there is already a page called Web hosting service which does this. But for pages like Newgrounds, there is no interwiki link that can be conveniently placed to describe its structure. This information is essential for understanding everything else. To quote WP:NOT:
"Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples."
Note the word "only". While what you suggest should be included, the guideline says that the basics must be covered first. In order for the reader to understand the significance of any "controversy" or fame, he must understand the background. An article should be more than a "checklist" of what a website is, but it should also be more than a collection of trivia and newsbits about the website in question. Esn 03:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured on Virus Alert Video

In the video of "Weird Al" Yankovic, the scene where the computer, person's head, and cat's head pops, the computer shows a Newgrounds logo.

Add it or not?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.106.220.174 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 7 November 2006.

No wonder, it's made by the creator of "Retarted Animal Babies. His characters make cameo appearances too. Esn 10:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
If a section were added on how Newgrounds was the launching pad for the careers of several artists, I think that could certainly be mentioned in there. It may be a bit too early to add in a section like that though, because although I feel that some Newgrounders are in the process of rising to fame, there isn't anything really specific yet. Some guys like Robert Benfer (aka Knox) are directing feature films with some big people, but they are still not considered notable enough for wikipedia. If the Robert Benfer page ever gets undeleted and stays undeleted for a month, perhaps that will be a sign that it's time to start such a section.
On the other hand, you could just start a "Newgrounds in pop culture" section. That would be easiest, I think. Does anybody know any other instances of Newgrounds appearing somewhere? Esn 06:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obvious Vandalism

Hi - this article is currently vandalized. I'm a newbie here so someone who knows how should revert the article to some previous version or fix it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.173.242.14 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 12 November 2006.

Hey there. Someone fixed it (this page gets vandalized regularly, so people watch it), but I may as well explain. To fix vandalism, click on the "history" button at the top, seek out the last non-vandalized version of the page (you can compare different versions), then revert to it. To revert to it, click on the date for that version in "history" - this will allow you to see what the article looked like at that time. Now click "edit" - you'll be editing the old version of the article. Now save, and write "revert" or "rv" in the edit summary so people will know what you did. Esn 12:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adds

I think that we should add in that Newgrounds is full of Hentai adds. If you have visted the site there are many things such as adds with girls saying stuff about looking at naked anmie girls, games such as Hentai Quizes, and a entire game section on Hentai.Sonic34 19:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Good old Toby

The trouble is that this section may become outdated pretty soon since Newgrounds is looking into overhauling its entire advertising system, including possibly doing away with pop-ups ([1]). But the thing about Newgrounds containing adult material is relevant - maybe the article should mention that submissions can be rated anything from "everyone" to "mature" (I'm not sure if those are the exact names), and those ratings then appear next to the name of the submission on its page. Newgrounds is definitely not all family friendly, but it does have a system kinda like ESRB/film ratings. Esn 20:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikigrounds?

why was the wikigrounds link removed it's fairly important and has a nice selection of articles I mean it's a "newgrounds wiki" you aren't gonna get much more info then that on NG. --CartoonDiablo 01:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)CartoonDiablo

As of 6 December 2006, the link provided does not work (broken possibly?) If not, I would request an entire removal of the Wikigrounds link. --Specter01010 20:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing "moderators" section

I've removed the "moderators" section on the following grounds:

-it is listcruft

-the forums are not the reason that Newgrounds is notable and worthy of a wikipedia article

-the only people who may find the info usefull are users of the Newgrounds forums. They can already easily find the list of moderators at the bottom of every forum section.

Esn 16:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it completely fails on any sort of notability check, and is definately cruft. Canadian-Bacon t c 16:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/w/Talk%7ENewgrounds_8dc5.html"