Talk:Something Awful

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review Something Awful has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on June 28, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Archived discussions

[edit] Google Censorship

This seems a glaring omission. Google's censorship of SA is a major deal. I don't know much about it (which is why I looked up SA on Wikipedia) so I'm not going to add.

Care to explain a little further?--Drat (Talk) 22:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I did a little interweb search on the topic, and found nothing. Of course, I was using Google... So, the deal is this: I seem to remember that there was a period of time in which a Google search for "Something Awful" did not turn up the SA website, because Google was censoring the search results to that end. I vaguely remember witnessing the phenomenon myself. Can anyone confirm that Google really did this?67.183.165.200 01:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I remember that, but it's not really notable considering it doesn't happen now: [1] --Liface 02:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
1.)Many people use Google. 2.)Most people believe that the search results are not edited for content. 3.) To my knowledge, this is the only site Google ever censored in the USA...... I think those 3 points make it pertinent to this article. 67.183.165.200 02:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
All the same, it would need further proof than "I remember it happening", and that would likely be hard to come by.--Drat (Talk) 02:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I remember it as well. If someone has archive access (I don't), I'm sure they could dig up the threads on the subject. These wouldn't be linkable from Wiki, though. However, a few years ago, it was fairly common knowledge amongst goons.
Actually, here's some supporting evidence: [2]
Note the date of 14 September 2003--Trypsin 23:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, a reader comment on a blog is not exactly a reliable source.--Drat (Talk) 03:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
As a forum member, I haven't heard of this particular event and I would think I would have. There is some tension because Google somewhat arbitrarily blocked the site from their Google Ad system for "violating terms of service" which seems to mean that the site contains too much swearing. This stuff is hardly worth including in the article, but it's the only SA-Google tension in recent history. Google is probably better left unmentioned. --65.100.35.112 08:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
This certainly did happen, and it was never explained. What is interesting though is SA is still showing up at the very bottom of Googles searches. http://lastgeist.blogspot.com/2006/05/top-10-last-domains.html
That's not the very bottom, it's the 10,000th or so result. Twinxor t 02:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It is still happening. Surely such a thing is worthy of a mention? It seems very strange. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.159.98.95 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 16 December 2006.

Sign your comments. And it works fine for me. Dlong 02:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

According to the reliable sources guide, personal websites can act as primary sources in articles that are about themselves. --Xombie 16:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That is about personal websites, such as those of celebrities, etc! This is not a personal website, it is a forum and forums are by default not worthy to be used as references.
Anyway, there's a lot of original research in this article. "His articles usually take a tone of ironic, naive enthusiasm" -- says who? etc. bogdan 15:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
SA isn't just a forum, although your other points are good. I'll make some changes.--Drat (Talk) 10:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I've trimmed the personalities section. I also went to work on the features section. The ROM Pit and Movie review sections were redundant, for example, as there is a section that already makes a blanket covering of movie, game, etc. reviews. I threw in a few fact tags for good measure. I've got some links to cite for the Hurricane Katrina donation controversy, I'll work on those tomorrow maybe, but here they are for others to cite if they want to:
--Drat (Talk) 12:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
SA does count as a personal website or blog. This article is primarily about the front page, not the forums. As the rule states, "Self-published sources... may be used only as sources of information on themselves, and only in articles about them." The rule uses Stormfront as an example, it does not only apply to information on particular figures or small websites. I am removing the tag. --Xombie 21:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing the personality analyses again. The links given do not work (I'm guessing I need a forum account, and I'm not about to shell out for one), and even then, forum posts are not typically not WP:RS.--Drat (Talk) 04:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
"still writing it" is flimsy rationale for deletion. Parsons' WW II interest isn't a matter of "analysis": it's a cold, hard fact that's been in evidence throughout his Something Awful career, and his decision to write fact-based articles is an important difference between him and the site's other writers. Stilgar135 05:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I've restored it.--Drat (Talk) 06:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
This article isn't about the forum and uses the site itself as reference, not the forum posts. Removing tag per WP:RS. --Xombie 19:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SA and Wikipedia

[3] :) Will (message me!) 16:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Although it didn't happen to me - the image loaded fine - SA uses (or has used) offsite linking images that are... unpleasant. At least there was the last time it happened to me, but that was two or three years ago. It's usually best to link to the page that shows the image. Wikipedia is also parodied in Tub Bites! 1, first a few scenes in, and then in the last scene.--Drat (Talk) 19:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The nastiness occurs when you "leech" an image on another site by displaying the image inline. Twinxor t 08:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Funny, was looking for LMoM

Followed a redirect here (Terrible Secret of Space) and expected to get to the song by Laziest Men on Mars. BigNate37T·C 04:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hardly surprising. TSOS was inspired by SA, and the song alone doesn't really warrant an article.--Drat (Talk) 05:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SPEWS

In two Front Page News updates (August 3 and 7), Zack Parsons informed readers of the blackout, warned network administrators against using SPEWS, and outlined the (fictitious) origins of SPEWS and its founders.

Now, as I am writing this... its July 25th... so how come this article is talking about front page updates that havent even appeared yet... Are they from August of a past year? Would be nice if someone clarified, as I cant check SA's news archive, they make my web browser crash for some reason. Ghilz 16:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It was either '05 or '04. I can't remember which. --Liface 16:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Same here. Browser doesn't like SA archives. Strange.--Drat (Talk) 03:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler Tags

Are spoiler tags really needed around the famed ICQ prank? - Abstract Idiot (talk • contribs)

[edit] SA references in other media

I came to this article today looking for some kind of master reference to other media, particularly games, that have referenced Something Awful, but there is no such information. I don't know if this kind of thing is worthy of the article, but here's what I recall so far:

  • In The Elder Scrolls 3: Morrowind, there's a powerful weapon called the Banhammer, which is a reference to Lowtax's mythical weapon of forum discipline. The character that had the banhammer was had a name derived from Lowtax as well.
  • Lowtax's face was featured in a flight-sim game. I think it was in the IL-2 series.
  • There are a few references in the Grand Theft Auto games. I recall a billboard and there's a criminal ranking just after "goon" called "SA Goon" in GTA: Vice City.
  • Ropekid, in particular, included some SA references in the games he worked on, like Icewind Dale II. This is mentioned in the Lowtax article.

There's also some more SA game references mentioned here [4] that I don't specifically recall.

So, would such a list be worthy of inclusion? Can someone tell me which flight sim it is that features Lowtax as a pilot?

You need reliable sources.--Drat (Talk) 06:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] High Alexa rank?

Checking SA on alexa (after noting 4chan's high rank, it occured to me that mention of the rank of 1317 might be an idea [5]. What do others think, and where should the rank be inserted? LinaMishima 10:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Intro paragraph or something. --Liface 23:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Nobody cares about Alexa. GeeCee 00:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I would generally agree there, Alexa ranks are notoriously wrong. However given that it has a large enough userbase so as to say that ranks above 100,000 are significant, I would say that a rank above 3000 is clearly a very major achievement! Something awful deserves to have this acknowledged, in my opinion. LinaMishima 00:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GRANDMA or GRANDMOTHER?

In the "Terrible Secret of Space" section, it states that the robot talked about pushing "GRANDMA" down the stairs. I read the article (as linked) and found this:

Lowtax - PAK CHOOIE ANSWER: ITEMS PUSHED - GRANDMOTHER TARGET - STAIRS IT WAS THAT I DID PAK CHOOIE

As far as I know it was only when Lowtax wasn't assuming the role of the robot that he referred to her as "grandma". However, when I changed it to "GRANDMOTHER" it was immediately reverted.

Is there something I'm missing? --RKingdom 22:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a bad call on my behalf - the early parts of the logs (without the robots speaking) use grandma, whereas the robots use grandmother. It never occured to me that lowtax might use different terms to make the switch seem more real. The line in the article refers to the robots talking, and so you're right. I wonder if there are other sources out there to add to this section, to indicate the meme's relative importance?
Thank you for taking this to the talk page rather than simply changing, and I'm sorry for not being more complete in my checking. LinaMishima 22:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Plagarism of Neal Stephenson

The September 3, 2006 article by "Maxnmona" contains on obviously plagarised synopsis of "Snow Crash" by Neal Stephenson. The nature of the article contains no room for it, as the whole point of it is for the author to criticise and "rewrite" parts of a certain book. I contacted "Maxnmona" about it and he replied "ur ultra-gay 2 the max" and then "ur supa-dupa gay reaching eye-poppin levels". Below is the portion I have discussed. How can they complain of plagarism when they commit the same?

Lord of the Rings

Old Plot: A group of heroes works seperately to unmake a ring of ultimate power and defeat its evil maker.

Better Plot: A samurai sword wielding pizza delivery man teams up with a young stakeboarding chick to stop a madman from using the internet to spread an ancient Babylonian spell that turns everyone into Pentecostals. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.51.89.132 (talk • contribs) .

Um, it's a joke. An obscure joke, maybe, but certainly a joke. I mean last I heard SA is a humor site. --waffle iron talk 05:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

-blah-::Oh ok, so they just have free rein to claim to be bettering something (Yeah usually in a funny way) with their own work, but instead just use an authors work, and no problem! I forgot that plagarism is alright when it's on a well known website. What does it matter if it's a humor website, Ebaums is a humor website, but SA and it's panties get in a bunch when people from Ebaums use images hosted by SA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.51.89.132 (talk • contribs) .

The point of the article was that he wasn't making classic literature any better in his suggestions. To approach it as serious and make wild allegations makes you look silly. --waffle iron talk 05:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Uh yeah, it's parody. The readership would get the reference, laugh, and move on. Ebaum doesn't even bother with parody. He rebrands the images and then throws ads over them. They're not comparable.24.225.83.41 13:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"wild allegations"? It's on a publicly viewable page. How am I making a wild allegation? That suggests that I am making a group of claims that are not possible to investigate, and it is plain to see. http://www.somethingawful.com/index.php?a=4065

Calling it plagiarism on the page is also original research. Besides, given that the kind of demographic that SA attracts, Maxnmona likely assumed they'd get the reference.--Drat (Talk) 08:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Tank is Fight

The Wikipedia entry for "My Tank is Fight" redirects here, yet it is not mentioned anywhere in this article. Are we going to create a new section this article on it, or create a new article (like there is with Maddox's book)? W3bbo 23:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just created a stub article on My Tank is Fight, feel free to finish it off W3bbo 23:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The book has not been released yet, and there are no professional reviews. Wikipedia isn't an advertising service. There's usually precedent for creating articles on items to come out if there is independant verifiable and reliable sources regarding it. In the literary world Zack's not (yet) known.--Drat (Talk) 15:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
However, that's not a good reason for taking it out of the main SA article. Having a book published by a legitimate publishing house is certainly noteworthy within the context of the website, especially because this is a fairly unique case: it's a hard-to-categorize book that is being published solely because of the Something Awful reputation. It's comparable to The Alphabet of Manliness, Real Ultimate Power and I Hope they Serve Beer in Hell. the first has its own page; the second are prominently mentioned on their creator's pages. With that in mind, MTIF deserves at least a mention here. Stilgar135 22:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia appeared in Awful Link

In 19th of September, there are six articles from Wikipedia that appeared in Awful link of the day. Those are Knuckles (from Sonic the Hedghog), Echidna, The internet, Internal Combustion Engine, William Shakespear (Whats wrong with William Shakespear? - Han) and Western Culture. 17:40, 19 September 2006, hanchi.

The joke was that the Knucles article is longer than any of those other, more noteworthy, subjects. You should probably stick to Maddox if you need jokes like these explained to you. Ghost of starman 21:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


Oh okey. I couldnt understand the joke actually, thought it was another rant of Wikipedia or something.hanchi 27 Sept 2006.

[edit] Sources

I put together some sources on the forums page before it was merged. Since I'm lazy, I'll just copy-paste my message here:

All your Base: [6] [7]
Another photoshop fas [8]
Lawsuit from Apple [9]
General article about internet forums mentions it [10]
Hurricane Katrina issue [11][12][13] [14][15][16]
On Attack of the Show (the video itself)[17][18]
SPEWS issue [19]
EBaum's conflict [20] (I know, not the best source, but the best I could find)
Uwe Boll [21]
Sony's viral marketing scam [22]
There's also some stuff about the guy who posted there and committed a murder-suicide that appeared in a national newspaper, but I can't find it. The main article definitely needs cleanup though. --Wafulz 01:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One Time Registration

"Something Awful is particularly well-known for its forums, which have the unique feature of requiring a one-time registration fee." This feature is definitely not unique, for example, metafilter also requires a one time registration fee. Changing to "Something Awful is particularly well-known for its forums, which require a one-time registration fee."Kennedyyyyy 23:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, though this could've been summed up in an edit summary. --Wafulz 23:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion of Speedy tag

The reason I reverted the speedy tag was that the wording made it clear it was in bad faith. No proper criteria was specified.--Drat (Talk) 11:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there's really no question that this article doesn't qualify for speedy deletion. Twinxor t 13:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/o/m/Talk%7ESomething_Awful_df98.html"