Talk:Urban Dictionary

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lydia.spurrier.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Linj0, Ronukj. Peer reviewers: Linj0, Ronukj.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Content and quality control

I've just completed an expansion of these sections and where possible have included citations to the Urban Dictionary web site. Several comments in the QC section, including those about the lack of a vetting process for editors, are important enough and stand up to scrutiny of the Dictionary and editorial chat pages, but are difficult to provide simple sources for. I believe they should not be left out, so if anybody has concerns about the lack of sources please bear that in mind and, if necessary, please see how the site works for yourself. Maybe some easily accessible sources will arise at some point....?PårWöet (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC).

I was just at the Urban Dictionary site after not looking there for some time. It does not appear that the public are invited to be the editors any more. Can anyone advise more on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.179.214 (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

My visit to UD today was the first for some considerable time, so please correct me if I am wrong to reply thus:

I didn't see any option to Edit entries. But there is an option tab labeled "Game" that I don't recall seeing before. I clicked on the tab and was given a definition with three options (Add It, Keep Out, I Can't Decide) to do what I recall was solely carried out by editors.

Far from being "uninvited", then, it seems that there's no longer a quasi-formal editing process. What exists now is open access to anybody who clicks on the "Game" tab. With that kind of editing, it seems quite relevant that it's classed as a Game.

Another nail in the coffin of whatever credibility UD previously had.PårWöet (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this entry is really Wikipedia-like

It seems to be a rule book or guidelines of submission rather than general information about the site and its role in the web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.165.186 (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

I think there should a section of criticism for this site. Mrmister107 (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Me too. In-Correct (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a huge criticism of this site because you can search your name in Urban Dictionary and you will get a inappropriate response in some cases. There is also stereotyping on this site and misogynist views of women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabbaGg (talk • contribs) 15:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, there is a bias toward youth that's not really quantifiable. But look at the entries for Neil Young and Bruce Springsteen, for example. Very negative, with big thumbs ups to the negative entries.NjtoTX (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section needed. As of Sept. 2015, the Urban Dictionary is useless. It seems focused on preposterous sexual situations, presumably made up by pre-adolescents who have no knowledge of physiology. It is simply a well of insult and nastiness. Lynxx2 (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

True. But in addition to the improbable sexual situations, the web site has a huge number of definitions that seem to have been made by the chronically frustrated or romantically naive to proclaim their feelings about a particular person or themselves. As well as claims of sexual prowess or size of body parts, there are many examples of doting adoration or blatant condemnation of a person. Examples can be seen in entries for names or nicknames of people: Mike, Simon, Sharon... pick any name and it's usually there. However, that might be regarded as 'original research' unless there are some good independent sources that point out the problems.

What benefit the site might otherwise have had is rendered completely insignificant in the light of such silliness. It's either as useful as a chocolate teapot unless you categorize it as "Game", or its a vehicle for libel. Twistlethrop (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, UrbanDictionary.com has definitions or descriptions of "street language" where the definitions and descriptions can be racially biased or offensive due to the use or meanings of these words or phrases. The words in Urban Dictionary are satirical and sometimes prejudice because that is how the words are used in context. The words have purposeful meanings in a specific context and can be criticized, however, it will not change the fact that a word is being used in this particular way. If you disagree with a definition or a description then you can downvote it and create your own definition, however, people may not use the word the same way as you. Language and slang are culturally defined and there are even racist/prejudiced words in the dictionary. The dictionary does not define names of people, but there are sites that explain the origin and meanings of names. Urban Dictionary is not a vehicle for libel as it does not usually address a specific persons full name. If a full name is defined it is usually a general name or a famous person and the definitions again, are satirical. Names generally have satirical definitions that should not be taken offensively but more in a joking manner. Many people in the world have the same first and last name so chances are, the definition is not directly about you, but rather a group of ideals that people have come to notice about a person of that name. Improbable sexual situations are very probable, you may just not agree with the situations or such situations disgust you, so you do not partake in them. Just because you do not do something or do not agree with something, does not mean the whole world thinks the way that you do and that is why Urban Dictionary is a great tool because it gives us insight to culture unlike your own. EditAllAround (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it contains examples of "street language" that are as useful for reference as entries in a more 'establishment' form of dictionary. I also agree that, as much as they might seem improbable to a person who has not encountered them in real life, some definitions of a sexual nature are reflections of what some do engage in. Some definitions might be genuine attempts at satire or humor but for that to be true, the subject of the satire must be readily identifiable as someone notable in a society beyond a local or narrow grouping of people. If they are not, they are most often in-jokes - or worse - about a private person unknown outside of a school or similar small group. There is evidence of definitions which have amounted to personal attacks on private individuals - some very young teenagers - but which have not been removed despite requests.

You're treading on dangerous ground by suggesting that a refutation of an entry implies that a person does so because of inexperience, unfamiliarity, or even disgust... but never because the entry is simply wrong. The fact remains that there ARE entries in UD which have been made purely for self-gratification, titillation, or some reason other than that they are accurate reflections of language. It is not always easy to identify them, partly because nobody knows every word or term that's there, but there are some spurious definitions that stick out like sore thumbs. Although you claimed that they can be removed, any action you describe depends upon somebody in authority checking each entry and verifying its accuracy. I mentioned some that are plainly wrong but have remained in place. All of that I discovered by being a contributor and editor for UD until I realized that my efforts were futile.

Be that as it may, if you're unwilling to accept that they do exist and that they make UD an unreliable source for people who wish to discover the meaning of words and phrases, I see little point in continuing this dialog.Twistlethrop (talk) 07:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

It looks like what's happening with the names is that some groups of young people are using them to attempt to either woo or insult each other. The edit/voting process involves a category selection phase, selecting from [shrug emoticon]/Name/Drugs/Sex/College/Sports/Food/Internet/Work/Music/Religion, so you can flag something as a name, which may help eventually. UD seems to be quite highly favored in Google searches. It also has no forum, but if it's still more or less a one-man operation that's not so surprising.58.70.252.68 (talk) 09:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Some girls at my school made a page about me and got people to like it. This can be a very hurtful site Hailey qq (talk) 01:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead-in, suburb dictionary and trash my own edit

Yeah, well, I just popped over here to read something, the lead-in struck me as non-English, so I modified and in the course of my enquiries I discovered that SuburbDictionary is a totally, NON-NOTABLE website that comes up on page 2 of Google if you type "suburb + dictionary" and NOWHERE in the first 8 pages if you just type "suburb". Also, there is no Wikipedia entry so this would appear to be blatant WP:NOTPROMOTION, well I am going to recraft the first paragraph and remove all reference to suburb dictionary, it just appears to be a non-moderated computer/user generated wiki that has nothing to do with the appeal or popularity of sites such as Wikipedia, Urban Dictionary, Uncyclopedia Dramatica etc. Captain Screebo (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete "Traffic and users" section

I propose the deletion of this section, the information contradicts the lead-in and it is just a bunch of internet stats, "as of" this date, is this really relevant or necessary? If there are no objections, I'll go ahead and do it maybe next week. Captain Screebo (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering: are there comparable sections/information on other articles about websites? If it's a style norm in other articles, I'd say keep it. If not, yeah, clear it out. $0.02 DP76764 (Talk) 16:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the $0.02, yes, well I've checked a few website articles and, no, they don't usually carry this info, the only one so far is HabboHotel, which mentions the number of users as of January, 2011. I'll look for some articles about the success or popularity of UD and see if I can integarate this into the article but I think this section is on its way out.Captain Screebo (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think deleting the section is a good idea, as there are other website article that have such sections. While a long listing of "notable users" is certainly not notable, there are other things that could fit under the subheading. Take a look at the Fark and Slashdot articles for ideas on improving the section. WTF? (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reply, I have stalled my action awaiting comment, I'll go see before acting CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Reference to deletion of entries appears to be out of date

There no longer appears to be any method to delete a word or suggest that it be deleted. I'm holding off changing the WP entry in case I'm missing something. Is there still a way to delete entries? PRL42 (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I wrote to them to ask how get rid of a ridiculous definition, that runs contrary to its own source ("Brooks of Sheffield" from David Copperfield) and was told that the editors themselves will not delete such an entry; the only recourse, they said, is for users to vote it down. Nandt1 (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Template

I expanded the template, Template:Dictionaries of English, and added it to this article, and a few others. Does this seem useful? should i add pub dates? is it correct in its categorizing?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Dictionary?

the first paragraph is incorrect. i have been on the site, and it is not a dictionary. Jake1993811 (talk) 06:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a list of definitions for various words; sounds like a dictionary to me. DP76764 (Talk) 06:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a list of definitions for various types of terms, it definitely does indeed look like a dictionary. Oh and BTW, can someone get this article semi protected when it's perfect? Vmkcheat (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Vmkcheat

Dubious claims

While Urban Dictionary can occasionally be useful for some slang terms, a vast amount of its content seems to be made-up nonsense, often very badly written. Contrary to what this article seems to be suggesting ("all new definitions must be approved by editors", "submissions are regulated by volunteer editors"), in practice there appears to be almost no effective editorial control. 86.160.215.168 (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, much of it is made up or inaccurate or just jokes but, it does still have editorial control on submissions no matter how pathetically weak and ineffective it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.223.127.19 (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, some it is complete rubbish. I have tried in vain to get a fanciful definition deleted and a correct definition substituted. Really frustrating -- they just don't seem to care! Nandt1 (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

IBM's Watson

Why isn't Watson (computer) mentioned in this article? The engineers used Urban Dictionary as a source to "feed" Watson. 85.246.165.215 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

why doesnt this guy have a page?

Aaron Peckham, innovator, seems not to have a page. why is that? is there some cease & desist order on wiki not to post a bio of the man? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bergin (talk • contribs) 23:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. His name currently redirects to the Urban Dictionary page, but a separate page is warranted. I will try to look into this Bergin (talk • contribs). Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 14:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

There are very specific criteria that must be adhered to regarding living persons. Please see WP:BLP and WP:Notability. WTF? (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Accounts

The article notes that editors must have Google+ or F***b*** accounts. What it does not say is that this is a recent change. 64.53.191.77 (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

..why did you censor "Facebook"? Prinsgezinde (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

No need to censor. Odd. I dream of Maple (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Urban Dictionary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141129021255/http://ads.urbandictionary.com/ to http://ads.urbandictionary.com
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141225210729/http://www.calpolynews.calpoly.edu/magazine/fall-09/alumni-roundup.html to http://www.calpolynews.calpoly.edu/magazine/fall-09/alumni-roundup.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

            HI, I am a student at the University of Maryland and am new to the Wikipedia Contribution/Editing world. I just added in the usage sub head that Wikipedia and Urban Dictionary are similar because they both allow contributions. This may be removed but I thought I would add it. Uchechi. (talk) 04:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hyperlink Vocabulary.com

Hi, I also hyperlinked the Vocabulary.com, it is not a page yet, but maybe that will motivate someone to add content/create that page. Uchechi. (talk) 04:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

vocabulary.com seems to be a non-notable vanity page. I don't see why it needs a wikipedia article. Please review WP:Notability. Every single website does not need an article about it, but if it's written by a particular company, there may be an article about that company instead. WTF? (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

No need to link.I dream of Maple (talk) 05:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Urban Dictionary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130430065229/http://www.nobleworkscards.com/urban-dictionary-funny-greeting-cards.html to http://www.nobleworkscards.com/urban-dictionary-funny-greeting-cards.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Suddenly changing meaning of terms

We should add a section highlighting how Urban dictionary has recently changed the definition of terms. For example the term "trump derangement syndrome" which even Wikipedia defines as "for criticism or negative reactions to United States President Donald Trump that are perceived to be irrational, and have little regard towards Trump's actual policy positions" had been recently changed to mean the complete opposite of what actually it means in urban/pop culture. Similarly other words like "Trap" and other have been recently modified to what the original and still common meaning is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.173.63 (talk) 06:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

meaning of "urban"

There seems to be little "urban" about Urban Dictionary. It does not focus on cities in particular. So why is it called "Urban Dictionary"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spanghew2fs (talk • contribs) 02:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

It's probably in the same category as "urban legends", which also don't necessarily have to be about cities. 70.124.147.243 (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The page repeats itself and since I'm constantly logged out due to an annoying error I can't do stuff with it.

There is a part in this where it repeats itself. Fix now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.116.194 (talk • contribs) 20:41, November 4, 2021 (UTC)

How about giving us a hint as to what the problem is? I'm not going to read the entire article in the hopes of spotting what you meant. Meters (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary can't be a source

This article uses Urban Dictionary as a source, twice. It says on the article "Wikipedia:Reliable sources" that user-generated content is not a reliable source, so I'll be taking Urban Dictionary as a source out. Feel free to discuss this edit, though. --KawaiiManiac (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2021

Hello, I was reading the Urban Dictionary article and noticed that on Application, other, on the Duterte section is that theirs's no citation and would like to request someone to add a citation using this or something else. https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2019/08/21/1945196/palace-disputes-na-duterte-urban-dictionary-entry Randomuserontheinter (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done I've added the source and some additional information that was in the article. Thank you for your request! Yeeno (talk) 🍁 00:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

the link about Watson using urban dictonary is broken

the link is broken (IBM uses urban dictionary for Watson. VapingMan (talk) 11:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed Peaceray (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Why is the title italicized?

Urban Dictionary is not any of the types listed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Italic type. Sandsandsandsa (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is one of the listed types. It's the title of a major work. Per MOS:ITALICWEBCITE: "Online non-user-generated encyclopedias and dictionaries should also be italicized. Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis." Presumably this is a case of a user-generated dictionary website where it has been decided to italicize. Meters (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2022

The “See also” subsection should be deleted entirely. It contains a single wlink to Reference.com, an unrelated online lookup resource. According to the article Reference.com does not relate to Urban Dictionary in any way. The wlink is apparently an effort to promote Reference.com. 2603:9004:A04:7C1D:A821:E738:5E26:12F0 (talk) 12:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2022

SuperIdol24 (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary was made on December 9, 1999

Change 1999 to December 9, 1999

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20091209042156/http://www.urbandictionary.com/

 Not done: The ref you provided just says "4,423,676 definitions since December 9, 1999", not that the site was made on that date. It's not an unreasonable assumption, but it's still an assumption. Aoidh (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Meaning of "Israeled"

Offensive 108.41.122.88 (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are talking about. As per this WikiBlame search for "Israelied" in the Urban Dictionary article, there was no inclusion of the term in the article.

If you are discussing the inclusion of the term at www.urbandictionary.com, please read the Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site section from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Discussions on a Wikipedia article talk page should be limited to improving the article, not commentary about the subject. The latter is better suited to social media. Peaceray (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

"Reliability of Urban Dictionary" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Reliability of Urban Dictionary has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 18 § Reliability of Urban Dictionary until a consensus is reached. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 19:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)