Talk:Rule 34 (disambiguation)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comments

{{editprotected}} I wanted to redirect this to Cartoon pornography (please don't read too much into that...), as someone searching for this term would most likely be looking for a definition, and that page is the closest one (though probably not an exact match). A redirect is better than a protected page. --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Done.  Sandstein  19:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Cartoon pornography is not even remotely close to what rule 34 means. The only way these two are even related is that they both involve porn. --203.211.123.251 (talk) 11:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Got a better target? --UsaSatsui (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but this frankly needs to be its own article, explaining the concept of "Rule 34". I don't think that notability is in the least questionable on this topic, and as Mr. 203.211 said, the only common denominator is that they involve porn. Rule 34 simply means that if you can imagine it, porn on the subject will exist on the Internet, and there will be no exceptions. toresbe (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I tried. I couldn't find any reliable sources whatsoever. If you can find some, then go right ahead and draft up an article or show them to me so I can draft one. If you can come up with a better target (I admit the one I suggested is a "best fit", not a perfect match". Rule 34 is most likely gonna involve some sort of cartoon character naked.), I'm all for that too. So long as it stays a blue link, I'm willing to work here. And I'm removing the {{editprotected}} template because you haven't actually requested a change to the article. --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Come to think of it, Internet pornography might be a better target...objections? --UsaSatsui (talk) 04:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Internet pornography is not quite as wrong as Cartoon pornography, but I hope somebody could create a draft. Maybe I will if I have time some time. toresbe (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, let's go with that. I think a section in the target article would be better than a whole article. --UsaSatsui (talk) 02:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please change the target to Internet pornography. --UsaSatsui (talk) 02:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done with no prejudice to being updated if there's further discussion ;) Skier Dude (talk) 06:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no section in Internet pornography about rule 34. Assume someone comes here and has no clue what rule 34 is. They get shoved into an article about porn on the Internet and no explanation why. I feel that it is trivial to make an article here that explains that rule 34 comes from the "Rules of the Internet". Rule 34 is "There is porn of it, no exceptions." The truth is that these are not the rules of "the Internet" since they began in the BBS days, but they didn't become any sort of canon until posted to /b/ (with Rule 0 removed, which is "There is no canon"). Ever since /b/ they are commonly known by that name. (How many Google hits do you want to show common knowledge? You can even get them in short form here) Most people don't know any rules except Rule 34 (which was nicely made into a joke here. Fight Club appears to have inspired rules 1 and 2 in the /b/ version, which has caused a lot of discussion about the whole reason for the rules. Were they a Fight Club joke? Regardless... I just think that either this needs to be an independent article or have a section (at least a single sentence reference) in the target article. -- kainaw™ 03:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Umm, i came here looking for the game of life. Don't know what all you guys are talking about. Bawolff (talk) 05:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. I'm looking for Wolfram's Rule 34, as mentioned in a recent xkcd strip. Hitting the notice was very confusing. At the very least, put a disambiguation page up. (Oh, wait: I get the xkcd joke now.) And be sure to point out it has nothing to do with Order 66. 66.159.87.107 (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Rule 34 article.

How about replacing the redirect with a stub article. ie:

"Rule 34 is a generally accepted internet rule, stating that for any topic that exists on the internet, pornography of that topic also exists. The origin for this term is unclear. See Internet pornography, Urban dictionary." 209.173.13.162 (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Won't do. Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source. See WP:V, WP:RS.  Sandstein  16:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

How about we put that and a , at least for now? that won't solve the issue and is a really ugly solution, but at least there will be something there so users aren't completely lost when they want to know what rule 34 is. Parryield (talk) 03:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with linking to Internet pornography is that it makes no mention of Rule 34. The same problem exists there - how do you reference a mention of Rule 34? So, it doesn't matter if this page is a disambiguation page or a redirect. Somewhere, Rule 34 must be mentioned without a good reference. So, we need a consensus. Can we mention Rule 34 for now without a reference? It is my opinion that we should do it. I don't think it belongs in Internet pornography - complicating an already long article. I support a short page explaining that the rule is well known, but the origin is disputed. -- kainaw™ 19:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Is tvtropes.org a reliable source? http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleThirtyFour?from=Main.Rule34 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.4.106 (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No. By and large, wikis are not considered reliable sources. (Ironic, I know...)--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

However those are good enough to get an entry on wiktionary. (you just have to show some usage by multiple sources over a course of a year or more) 76.66.193.69 (talk) 08:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1