Encyclopedia Dramatica:Thizzlehat Junction Center/Archive/52

Updating: Editing Tips & Front Page

Lately there seems to be a crapflood of People Articles lately, mostly about sterotypical tumblrinas, furries, and deviantartists who have no real defining features other than being tumblrinas, furries, and/or deviantartists.

Under the "Bad New Articles" square on the front page, beneath the portal link on it's own line, there should be a link to ED's editing guidelines at at least the "When is it Crap" page. Over time the rules pages have gotten sort of lost in the mire and having some links to them right upfront where people will see would help let people know what flies and what doesn't here to help discourage making crap pages.

To further help people not make total crap the "Is it Crap?" page should be updated with better info. Yes, we have ED:101 but that page is long, detailed, and serves the purpose of giving more detail on how to write and is not a fast rundown of of what's crap here. The Guide to Article Building is even longer and more detailed, but also mostly on wiki style. The current page on what is crap here is very short and lacks all detail making it not very useful. The exhibits are there, but are on multiple different pages and are not explained at all so a greenhorn wouldn't know what's wrong with them at first glance. A fast explanation of why the exhibits are crap followed by the old list as a "misc" list would be a better page.

I'll put a draft of the proposed "Is it Crap" upgrade below here. What do you think of this proposal/draft?

Please place comments below this line instead of below the draft for readability. Thanks! --3tails 14:00, 26 September 2016 (EDT)

Draft: Is It Crap?

You are probably here because someone put {{crap}} on your article and you are wondering why. "When is it crap?" explains the most common reasons articles go missing or are tagged as crap.

This page is meant as an overview with less TL;DR than ED101 but more detail than just looking at our Bad Article Exhibits without commentary. For further details on the finer points of editing articles, see ED:101.

It's a Shitty Attack Article

We get it- you hate that twat. Whatever they did, you're pissed now and are making an ED article about them because That will totally show them who's boss. Pages like this are known as Shitty Attack Articles.

The golden rule is simple: Proof or GTFO.

Saying they do something is boring. Showing them doing something is hilarious!

To not be a Shitty Attack Article your page needs to have actual drama and screencaps of moments of them being an asshat. Just saying insults about them is not enough. If you feel like you have to reach for examples or the examples are weak, then it's most likely not good enough.

What does NOT count as drama by itself:

• They fap to animals/furries. (So they're furry? Lame and boring.)
• They don't like having their art stolen. (Too common and therefore boring)
• They are Gay! (Nobody cares. This isn't amusing to anyone over age 12.)
• They are a slut. (You now sound like a jealous virgin.)
• They're underage. (We don't care about your classmates. GTFO.)
• They're broke and pandering for money. (Who isn't broke these days?)
• You hate them. (So what? Get a life.)

Examples of what counts as drama:

• They have publicly aired a messy breakup and are whining to all the world in ten page rants. (Mine out the best parts for lulz.)
• They wrote long guides on how to fuck your dog. (Screencap proof or this doesn't count.)
• They have a criminal record. (Again, give proof or this doesn't count.)
• They are writing shitty attack articles about that guy that pissed them off (Ironic, no?)

It's a Bad Article or reads like Uncyclopedia

We are not Uncyclopedia. We don't care how kooky or whimsical you think you are being, complete dribble with no basis on reality is likely to be rejected as a bad Article. That said, just shouting cuss words and saying nigger gay nigger jew over and over again isn't funny, either. There is a balance in humor here. If it doesn't fit the sense of humor seen on this site it probably won't fly.

How to learn the balance of humor we use here? Lurk Moar and look at Featued Articles until you have a feel for things. Not sure if you have it down yet? Lurk Moar. Lurking is always the right answer.

It Has No Internet Relevance

This means that unless there was a backlash or some drama involved that can be observed from the, anything from the real world does not matter.

For example, the TV show Everybody Loves Raymond, although disliked by some people, has not caused much in the way of observable drama. Because of this there shouldn't be a page on Everybody Loves Raymond. Charlie Sheen, however, is a huge drama whore who makes an ass of himself on the internet when he's not making an ass out of himself in the real world. Charlie Sheen can have his own page here because he is dramatic, interesting, and amusing all of which can be observable from the internet in sufficient amounts to prove it's not just a handful of people whining.

It's a Crappy Stub

If it's under 100 words it's likely to be removed. Period. We need something to read, here! If there's no images related on top of it being super short it's definitely going to be deleted or redirected. If you can't be bothered to actually write something of interest and pretty it up with at least one image, we can't be bothered to keep it here. Please see Exhibit B for an example.

It's Yet Another Furry/DeviantArt Article

Just because they're a furry, weeaboo, DeviantArtlet, or on Tumblr doesn't automatically make them lulzy. We have so many articles on people these days that they're all starting to look the same. If nothing stands out, then the page probably won't last. See Arman "red Axl" Dill as an example.

If you are writing things down that aren't unique or even really worthy of writing about because ALL OF THEM are like that, then you shouldn't make an article about that one because there's nothing lulzworthy going on. We need the very special snowflakes here, not the regular special snowflakes.

Common Furry Traits:

• Gay/Bi/Slut
• Faps to furries/cubs/animals
• Dead broke
• Lives with parents

Common Tumblr Traits:

• Feminist/Alternate gender (Unless really, really loud about it. Ex: Biting Beaver)
• Politically correct couch activist
• Hipster/Nerd/Ect
• "Girl", possibly with GOTIS

Common Deviantart/Furaffinity Traits:

• Traces/steals art
• Whines about art tracing/theft
• Has White Knights and a fan circlejerk
• Sucks at art
• Most likely broke and living with parents

Other Reasons

1. You are unfunny (and have the template on your userpage to prove it), therefore anything you write is automatically crap.
2. The Good Joke:Word Count Ratio is 1:500 or worse.
3. Your article is a stub and has no chance at becoming a good article without a complete rewrite.
4. You wrote a People article about some retard in your fucking High School, or some other highly personalized shit nobody cares about.
5. Your article is a vanity page or failed attempt to shamelessly self promote yourself on ED.
6. You neglected to include the links showing how your article is connected to drama on the Internets.
7. You forgot to include an approved category, in which case {{crap}} is the default category added by the Admins.
8. AND last of all if your reason is just simply not on this list, I suggest you go fuck yourself until further notice.

Response to that clusterfuck above

What's the point of a big comprehensive list telling people what not to write. Uberfukken 15:10, 26 September 2016 (EDT)

Also don't we already have that? CobaltCat 15:32, 26 September 2016 (EDT)

I already addressed this earlier before posting the draft: we don't actually have a decent page on what is crap. What we have is either TL;DR on how to edit, a short list, or has zero explanation (ex: Exhibit pages).

• Encyclopedia_Dramatica:Editing isn't a fast overview on what is crap: It's a long in-depth page on how to wiki format. It's also Tl;DR.
• Encyclopedia Dramatica:A User's Guide to Article Building is pretty much the same as above. It's also Tl;DR.
• Encyclopedia Dramatica:How 2 EDit for Dummies has a small section on what makes a decent article, but is mostly basic editing tips and wikification stuff again. It does not go into the common forms of crap page in much detail even though it does list some old memes.
• Encyclopedia Dramatica:Good Joke:Word Count Ratio is it's own topic. Joke count helps a page not be crap, but does not stop a page from being crap if the subject is basically an Exhibit or a People Article.
• The Exhibits (A, B, C, D, Shitty Attack, ect) don't explain why they're bad so a greenhorn might not get what the problem is.
• Encyclopedia Dramatica:When is it crap? is a short list that gives almost zero detail. Does not address the exhibits at all which is strange considering the exhibits are examples of what crap is. This is why I said it needs expanding.

Why do we need this? Because it's info that already is in the rules but not quickly and clearly stated where people can find it. Implied isn't enough sometimes. I did put thought into this and did look at the actual pages before posting. --3tails 16:37, 26 September 2016 (EDT)

I think you should just add the deviantart section of that into When is it crap? as that particular trend does need addressing if you take one glance at new pages or needed/proposed, otherwise it looks like it's redundant from the first few glances as per above. I am not against a revisal or checking of the help/policy pages and the like as part of some likely duly needed maintenance, however we should not rush in to create bits that are already there if they can just be re-written/added into other help/policy sections. (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2016 (EDT)

Yeah, some updating and revising would benefit many of the listed editing help/rules pages, really. This wiki and the trends of things people keep posting here have shifted as time goes by. People seem to forget the fact that we're not a revenge board and not Hitler's Uncyclopedia. Occasional revisions to rules and help pages make sure everything is still useful and is healthy for the wiki.

Having clear links to the editing rules on the main page (probably below the bad new articles section) also is wise. Also if there's a better spot to stick the info from the draft, I'm all ears. This is a wiki and info should be able to shift to wherever it makes the most sense for it to be. --3tails 16:42, 26 September 2016 (EDT)

>claims all policy pages/help guides are tl;dr

>writes a tl;dr post on how the help guides should be "improved"

>ED already has everything that was suggested, but not in clusterfuck form

>fails to realize that nobody cares

• Krade 18:36, 26 September 2016 (EDT)

There are several types of people who write shitty articles, and none of them are the type who would actually take the time to read a tl;dr guide on how to write non-shitty articles. — GirlOnInternet 18:45, 26 September 2016 (EDT)

I'd be shocked if anyone actually read the guidelines we already have. —  VX  21:29, 28 September 2016 (EDT)

This already existed at one point... until some clusterfuck named "Schnookums" decided to remove it...

https://encyclopediadramatica.se/index.php?title=Encyclopedia_Dramatica:When_is_it_crap%3F&action=history

--DemonGod 18:11, 3 October 2016 (EDT)

Hello Onideus - (Al Gore) 18:54, 3 October 2016 (EDT)

What's that, Hillary? --DemonGod 19:10, 3 October 2016 (EDT)

• How's the "n00 and 1mpr0v3d ED" coming along there, Sad Fatter? Or are you too busy shitting diapers and dishing out empty threats on the internet? • Krade 20:46, 3 October 2016 (EDT)

You sound REALLY upset. Is there something stuck up your ass perchance? --DemonGod 20:50, 3 October 2016 (EDT)

• Not really, because being upset requires taking you seriously, and it's pretty hard to take a joke seriously. • Krade 21:13, 3 October 2016 (EDT)

The fact that Onideus approves of and even wrote his own "Bad Articles for Dummies" guide is reason enough to not only ignore the requested update but also to purge the article out of existence. Uberfukken 21:50, 3 October 2016 (EDT)

• If it's written by Onidifag, throw it in the garbage bag. • Krade 13:48, 8 October 2016 (EDT)