This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eldomtom2 (talk | contribs) at 21:42, 8 June 2022 (→"Registration: None available (except for staff)": new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:42, 8 June 2022 by Eldomtom2 (talk | contribs) (→"Registration: None available (except for staff)": new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 4chan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | 4chan is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 14, 2009. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=icon}
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
| This is not a forum for general discussion of 4chan. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. All additions to the article require reliable sources for verification. Even the additions you want to make. Misplaced Pages does not accept original research; if you believe something to be true, you must be able to prove it. |
 | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Add Virgin, Chad, Stacy to the /r9k/ section
The Virgin, Chad, and Stacy archetypes are pretty famous and the /r9k/ section is quite short given how well-known it is.
Forgonemirage (talk) 11:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- It's a question of finding reliable sources that mention these terms in the context of 4chan. This is difficult, but this source does mention them, but not 4chan.--♦IanMacM♦ 13:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
OK symbol
no mention that the idea that the OK symbol was a "white power" sign started as a parody on 4chan? of course not. 166.181.82.125 (talk) 08:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- This is mentioned in some detail at OK_gesture#White_power_symbol and it is probably more on topic there.--♦IanMacM♦ 09:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Featured Article in need of review
As part of the ongoing project WP:URFA/2020, that aims to identify and draw attention to older Featured Articles that may not meet the current Featured Article criteria, I'm leaving this brief review of the article.
This is an older Featured Article that has not been reviewed since its promotion in 2008.
- The article fails criteria 1. c) of the Misplaced Pages:Featured article criteria, since it isn't "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". From a quick scan of Google Scholar, I can spot several well-cited academic works that are not being used here.
- There's an over reliance on sources closely related to the subject.
- The article feels dated, as the bulk of the sources are dated before 2012 - were there any changes to the way the website operates or its features?
- There are several short subsections that either need to be expanded or merged into broader subsections/topics, for instance in the "ISP bans" section.
- The History section is not in chronological order, since it reverts back to 2008-2010 in the Poole subsection.
- There's some trivia going around, with the "Internet attacks" subsection looking like a list of every time the website makes the news.
- What is the purpose of the "Other media attention" subsection? That information can be easily merged into other sections.
In short, I'd say that this article needs to present a broader view of the website, by incorporating the relevant literature that is available, instead of being a blow-by-blow account of every single time the website hits the news. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2022
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The new Alexa ranking for 4chan is #1,354 different from #1,042 2603:7000:6044:6100:2531:5E5A:AE1:AB42 (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Done Alexa Internet is due to end its service in May this year, so I'm not sure what will happen to all of the rankings after that.--♦IanMacM♦ 16:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Abundance of Triva
Broadly speaking, there's an abundance of trivia. To agree with RD, I elect that some sub-sections need to be merged or deleted. From my perspective, these sections (which do not document that which is foundational to the website's history or perception) are /sci/, the entirety of other media appearances Cyberbullying Murder in Port Orchard, Washington and Bianca Devins murder. Writing to gather consensus on merging and/or deleting. DMT Biscuit (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Having edited the section down, I nominate /mu to this section. DMT Biscuit (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- This feels uncomfortably like "let's purge the page of anything that suggests 4chan is more than neo-Nazis". --Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
"Registration: None available (except for staff)"
Shouldn't this be changed? 4chan passes would seem to count as registration. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages former featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Websites articles
- Mid-importance Websites articles
- B-Class Websites articles of Mid-importance
- B-Class Computing articles
- Low-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Websites articles
- B-Class Internet culture articles
- Top-importance Internet culture articles
- WikiProject Internet culture articles
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics