From 1d4chan
Jump to: navigation, search

I tightened up the formatting, but I'm worried that the "FFFFFFFFF..." doesn't make the best use of screen real-estate. There's a lot of white space between it and the pictures for me. Perhaps we can expand it or something - 09:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Add more FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF. And I liked the simplicity of just "FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF". Who needs a list! BloodyWanker 09:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to get all the pictures into a gallery at the bottom like on all the other pages? It looks kinda silly to have a bunch of pictures standing on top of each other out on the right, with nothing else but white the left of them. I'd do it myself but I don't know how. Myomoto 16:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't exactly the most serious of pages. I think it works fine as it is. I'm not sure what all this white you guys are talking about is, it renders fine in my browser. See image. --Carcer 16:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I figured out what the problem was, I was running my sage RSS feeds while watching the page, causing the page to become more narrow, resulting in the white area since the text had to be pushed below the images. By the way, the amount of 'F's seems less organic than it should, especially the way that they line up in a perfect square. Myomoto 16:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and edited the page, feel free to revert it back if you don't like this one better. --Myomoto 20:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

What the fuck!?! That list isn't alphabetized! -- Burrowowl 19:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Go edit it, tiger. Fatum 02:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, unaccustomed to getting shit done. -- Burrowowl 00:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Twilight fucking up the Contents[edit]

I have to point out, just as a reader, that haphazardly pasting the entire former-Twilight page into a collapseable box onto this page certainly has made the Rage article's Contents header an absolute fucking mess to behold. Does anybody with better wiki-editing knowledge know how to get all that shit out of the Contents section without just removing the Twilight stuff from the whole article? The best I can figure is to just move the whole goddamn Twilight article back from whence it came, but those guys on its discussion page would just eventually move it back here again and fuck this page up once more with their sloppy editing. Is there a way to compromise here so that the Contents isn't just a list of Twilight sperging?

I've gone ahead and replaced all of the Subheader Quotations on the twilight article with BIGBOLD quotations, so that its subheaders won't show up on the content bar. It still doesn't change the fact that there's an entire article sitting under that damn collapsible tab, we've just compromised the twilight article's readability in exchange for the sanity of the rest of the page. Evil Executive, CEO of Evil Incorporated (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, why is there that blurb attacking Meyer's political views? We aren't TvTropes. We're a 4chan wiki, so I say get this political correctness outta here and remove that section. There's no limit to the ways to rip on Twilight without going there.
It is there because people didn't like how Twilight had its own article, even though others pointed out why it's relevant to /tg/ a lot, so the compromise was to move the article onto this page. Since that was a part of that page, it's staying on this one. -- Triacom (talk) 07:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
The compromise was to make the redirect itself, not to copypaste the entire damn article. Stop trying to rewrite history in your favor.--Newerfag (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Holy shit, I could almost swear it was like we were talking to Asorel/Forgefather.. Wasn't it just a few months ago we had to put up with bullshit from him trying to delete huge swathes of the wiki in the name of his own self-imposed idea of purity?Evil Executive, CEO of Evil Incorporated (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I didn't rewrite history, moving the entire article WAS the compromise, much like moving the entire Rebecca Black article was the compromise when people didn't want that page to exist. -- Triacom (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
If you really dont want to delete it, then the least you can do is fix what's there instead of simply hiding it behind a collapsible section. I've already gone into detail on how it all reads like an unfunny whinefest bereft of any actual humor, so as long as you're going to keep it here it would be nice if you could actually make it funny. It's not about purity, it's about the humor- or more precisely, the absolute lack thereof. Is that really too much to ask now? Just because it was copypasted over doesn't mean it must be perfectly preserved as if it's absolutely flawless in its current state. I suggest using the C.S. Goto page as an example of how to do it; instead of picking apart each and every reason why they're bad and then dragging in th political views of the author that have no relevance to the subject matter at all, we make a few brief comments and then let the writing speak for itself. It would mean less textwalling, less of a whiny tone, fewer issues with the page formatting, and ultimately better at driving the point across- what reason could there possibly be to not try doing that instead of knee-jerk panicking over the red numbers?--Newerfag (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
And why is it my job to fix it? The argument was over whether or not it should have its own article, and when I moved the article here that solved the argument and everyone was happy. If you have a problem with how the article is written, then that is on you. I did not write it, edit it, or contribute to it aside from moving it because it was the subject of a debate and my solution solved said debate. For the record if the political views are on there, then that's because they pissed people off (yes political views do affect how people view that persons works), which is appropriate then that it's on the rage article, not to mention it being collapsible means you don't have to read it if you hate it so much. -- Triacom (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
So be it. I shall rewrite it myself if must. Just do not be surprised if there are things removed from it, as there's a fine line between sounding angry and giving the impression of a five-year-old throwing a temper tantrum because he was presented with vegetables on his plate- and that whole section so very strongly comes off as the latter. And to be clear, I do not hate it so much as I hate the laziness of the writing and the inability to distinguish humor from bitching. The fact that her political views got a mention at all is a bad sign, since I could just as easily imagine someone being pissed off at the people attacking her views. And honestly, why should fa/tg/uys as a whole care about what she thinks about gays? Unless it's sething as inherently political as Racial Holy War, 1d4chan ought to remain a politics-free zone.--Newerfag (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh I'm fully aware there's a difference between rage and temper tantrums, one belongs in the main page, the other is what you've done on this talk page. Don't be surprised if other people edit what you've changed, especially if you remove something others might consider important to the material. As I mentioned before, her political views might be important to keep a mention of because it explains why people don't like her as a person (and if you don't like somebody as a person you're probably not going to give their work a chance) though how it's presented is another matter entirely (for example, when I said it might be important to keep a mention of it, I mean a slight mention, as in one sentence). -- Triacom (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
We both know that I am someone who does not back down on his views without a a good cause (and has a habit of editing while cranky and deprived of sleep that I ought to break one day),and so I would prefer you not falsely brand my vehemence for throwing a tantrum.
But I digress. I fully expect any changes I make to be altered, but I also expect the people who edit them to be capable of backing up their edits with a good reason in the edit summary and/or this discussion page, so I might be able to respond to their rationale in a way beyond simply undoing the edit.
Your point about her political views isn't wrong per se, but the fact of the matter is that this is to be commenting on Twilight's own flaws and not about Meyer herself. We don't have anything on any other work that attacks its maker for their political views when those are irrelevant to the work, so why should this be treated differently? Her religion is another matter, but even then that is only because her Mormonism has a distinct effect on her work and deserves a mention if only to provide context for some of the weirdness in the book.--Newerfag (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I called it a tantrum based on how you presented your arguments, if you want to make the article better, then that's fantastic (I don't like it which is why I've I've tried to stay away from it), but even you must admit that how you presented it comes off a little as whining that an article consists of whining. I'd personally like to keep a mention about her political views because I don't think it's possible to divorce Meyer from Twilight, or Twilight from Meyer, though since they're so intertwined we could probably change the bullet point from "twilight" to "twilight and (by extension) stephanie meyer". -- Triacom (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
That is a decent enough compromise, and I suppose my lack of tact did work against me there. I suppose I will have to set out how to begin working on this soon in between all my other projects and however it is real life decides to interfere with what I want to do this time.--Newerfag (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
And done for the moment. I swear, half that article looked as if it wouldn't be out of place on Encyclopedia Dramatica. We're better than that, or so I hope. --Newerfag (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


Moved the edit from user out of the article:

difference in demographics, something hitting the target audience isn't that hard (a warhammer book/video game/whatever will easily pick up warhammer players). It would be much more amazing if say, a turn-based JRPG was to attract an entire subset of the COD/battlefield lot, so much so that an entire sub-section of the fan-base was created. in fact it is more than this as they have a common link of /v. Also, your point on twilight isn't valid as many people reference Twilight because of how bad it is "still a better love story than twilight" is a very common meme; the reference is aimed at the haters (who out number those who like it). MLP, on the other hand, is referenced because of how well known it is on the internet and so hope to gain views by tapping into it's notoriety, using the nostalgic critic again "I don't know the scientific explanation for it, but for some reason, every time somebody says pony on the internet, the views go through the roof"

--(these are not my words)--HK (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I did think it was a tad tl;dr but it is kinda out of context now.
The context is still there. This talk page is all about the article after all. Now, as for the argument, I wanted to make some things clear. The *BLAM* joke was added in the same edit that added the line about MLP being of some worth. I just dressed it up a bit with the formatting and the twilight joke. That's what it is, like most of the commentary on the article: a joke. In truth, MLP is more Skub than Rage, at least where /tg/ is concerned. Some fa/tg/uys like it. Some hate it. Many are ambivalent. The bullet point chain represents this trichotomy rather well I think. MLP being on the list doesn't mean there's anything wrong with MLP, it just means that some fa/tg/uys will rage hard any time it comes up, and that's something that's unarguably true.
As for the Twilight joke, well, it's also true. "Hey, if its popular enough to be parodied by famous internet people like the nostalgia critic, it must have some merits, right?" could easily be in defense of anything that the Nostalgia Critic has made fun of.
--HK (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok must have misinterpreted the page as "/tg's kill list" with things like matt ward on there.