Extremely online has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: April 5, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Extremely online article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from Extremely online appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 6 December 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
Yoninah (
talk)
21:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Created/expanded by JPxG ( talk). Self-nominated at 02:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC).
@ Headbomb:: When I wrote the article, I included a dril quote at the top (in lieu of an image illustration) since dril's mentioned by a lot of the sources as being a quintessential example of the phenomenon. If you'd like, I can add some more references/content to support that; but I think it should stay for now. I am working on finding an appropriate image illustration, and then I'd be fine with moving it down to the sections where it talks about him specifically. jp× g 04:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I think it's funny but it's really not that relevant to the lead. DemonDays64 ( talk) 07:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't like the photo of the man. Nothing about it indicates that he's not merely normally online. Benjamin ( talk) 06:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Editoneer ( talk · contribs) 10:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Events and phenomena can themselves be Extremely Online;, I thought you already said so by saying above
a person or subject.
latter half of the 2010s (...) increasing prevalence and notability of Internet phenomena in all areas of life.What made it so relevant now and not pre-latter-half?
Extremely Online people are interested in topics "no normal, healthy person could possibly care about",, did you forget a "that"? And I'll personally object to that, because I believe I'm Extremely Online but I'm not interested in dubious topics. You also didn't use "are described as", and you stated it as a fact.
the Dirtbag Left, a coterie of underemployed and overly online millennials who were radicalised by the Iraq war and the 2008 financial crisis, have no time for the pieties of traditional political discourse"; our article on them talks about their "
left-wing politics that eschews civility in order to convey a left-wing populist message". These seem to be in general agreement: is there a disconnect between them, and if so, what would be a better thing to say? jp× g 18:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
blackpilledmeans?
and the doomer's "blackpilled despair" combines with spending "too much (...)", combined?
is combined. Editoneer ( talk) 06:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
eclectic, what is ecletic?
Wint
In the shown example, pointing directions at the audience isn't encyclopedic.
have described as Extremely Online, have been?
You can argue the changes at any time, good luck. Editoneer ( talk) 17:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
and 2020 campaign, I don't feel is grammatically correct without some "the". But I consider this can be hotfixed, so all the progress is done, I'm putting it in second opinion. Editoneer ( talk) 14:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Generally an article's capitalization style should be reviewed with respect to WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. Since sources don't usually cap "extremely online" (when they use it in a sentence in the sense meant by this article), we should be using lowercase in Wikipedia. I realize JPxG disagrees, but the open RM suggests that this should have been fixed before this could be a Good Article (caps for emphasis). But Editoneer already flipped that bit, it appears, so we're addressing it in arrears. Dicklyon ( talk) 23:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I saw this in the GA listings and I thought it was a really interesting concept, but I think the article is weak because it relies on describing the concept mainly through examples. That makes it hard to really grasp why this is something beyond just "folks who use the internet too much" or "internet celebrities", and probably even harder for folks outside of the online-culture interest to understand.
Are there any journals that do a more broad over-view of this topic? Like the cause... or maybe how it fits into the 2010+ zeitgeist? Are there more statistics? Are there any quotable expert opinions on Extremely Online-ness? Are there any attempts to standardize the definition, like hours of engagement or number of posts? It is totally controlled (like some of the political examples) or is it a compulsive, additive facet of internet use? Is it explicitly an active descriptor? Like, content-creators, bloggers, taste-makers, activists etc.?
I don't need answers obviously- but that's the direction I'd take for an encyclopedic article. Cheers, Estheim ( talk) 14:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Is there a reason that the article uses “Extremely Online” rather than “extremely online”? It seems like we treat the article’s subject as a proper noun, even though we sometimes use it as an adjective. I feel inclined to make changes to the capitalization that we are using in the article, though I wanted to put this on the talk page before moving forward to see if anybody else has thoughts. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 07:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
This includes over-capitalization for signification, i.e. to try to impress upon the reader the importance or specialness of something in a particular context.It's obvious that the term "extremely online" is used in its special meaning throughout the article, so there's no need to provide semantic distinction. No such user ( talk) 13:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. Per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS, the term would need to be consistently capitalized in reliable sources and opposers note the evidence does not support that. ( non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 04:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Extremely Online →
Extremely online – The first sentence in
MOS:CAPS specifies that Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization
and advises to capitalize only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of [...] sources
. While some sources used in the article do capitalize the term "Extremely Online", it is far from universal practice: lowercase is used in the dedicated piece by
RealLife magazine, and then by
HuffPost,
WaPo,
Newyorker,
Vice,
NyMag,
NyMag,
Pitchfork... As a matter of fact, I checked first few pages of a news search for "extremely online" (with quotes) and the majority of articles uses lowercase.
Besides, I find the capitalized phrase as currently used in the article Extremely Jarring: per
MOS:EMPHCAPS, over-capitalization for signification, i.e. to try to impress upon the reader the importance or specialness of something in a particular context.
No such user (
talk)
08:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization, without qualification. This is a general principle which is often used in requested moves, see for instance Talk:War on cancer#Requested_move_16_November_2019, or Talk:Syrian civil war#Requested_move_11_February_2021 where MOS:CAPS is cited in the closure justification. There is also WP:NCCAPS specifically for article titles, but since the first sentence of that policy is
Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper namethat doesn't really help your case. Rublov ( talk) 18:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sourcesper MOS:CAPS. Worth noting that we do have articles titled Very good very mighty and Very erotic very violent which seem more directly analogous to this article than your examples. Rublov ( talk) 20:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
"Other societal phenomena like the Lost Generation, American Dream, and Second Great Awakening are capitalized the same way, for the same reason, and have been for a long time." That's a badly false analogy, for numerous reasons, the most obvious of which is that reliable sources near-uniformly capitalize those things, and do not for "extremly online"; and the latter is not in much of any way comparable to a generational monicker (which is conventionally capitalized as such a noun (thus " Generation X"), nor a central tenet, belief system, or doctrine of a society (even these are usually lower case, e.g. manifest destiny, per MOS:DOCTCAPS), nor a massive global cultural shift as named in historical hindsight (see also the Rennaissance and Industrial Revolution, versus the sexual revolution and the civil rights movement). Likening "extremely online" to these thigns isn't comparing apples and oranges, but comparing apples and lug nuts. And DOCTCAPS could not exist if JPxG's implication that WP capitalized such things generally were actually true. The truth is the exact opposite: titles like Lost Generation and Second Great Awakening are the rare and minor exception, not the rule. The very fact that we have Civil rights movement not Civil Rights Movement basically already tells you how this is going to conclude. If sources only half the time or so capitalize something of serious international, historical imporatance and WP thus lower-cases it, then WP is certainly not going to capitalize some bit of Internet jargon just because some people like to upper-case it to be arch and amusing. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
PS: After poring over the article on a cleanup run, I also observe that much of the directly quoted source material from the news mentioning this phrase put it in lower case. I think that clinches it. This has been capitalized in this article to date simply for
WP:ILIKEIT reasons. " Changing the title would change the scope of the article" = a very strange idea. There's no evidence to support such a notion, or article titles would virtually never change case on Wikipedia. I think JPxG maybe confusing the idea "a phrase can have two or more meanings" with "there are two or more encyclopedic topics vying for this title"; the latter is not the case.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
02:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
What's with the unexplained creapy 2012 tweet in the lead? I think I'll remove it and see if anyone comes back with a reason to put it back. Dicklyon ( talk) 23:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Ironic for this to be an issue here, but should this article be using the off-brand dril avatar? It was thoughtfully retired from the dril article in favour of a plain blue circle a couple of years ago. -- Lord Belbury ( talk) 12:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
@ JPxG the image might have been added to the article 7 months ago, but it was uploaded in 2008. The " demotivational poster" meme format is entirely outdated and is essentially from another era of the internet as "extremely online". I get why the Chapo image shouldnt be the lead image but a 13 year old meme is almost hilariously out of place and has nothing to do with this article. Might as well use this instead. jonas ( talk) 16:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, when I first wrote the article, I'd used the embedded dril tweet in the place where a lead image would normally be. At some point this was swapped out and put further down the article (the idea being that it needed to be directly next to the part of the body text where said tweet was referenced). After that went to the pot, I went around trying to find a photo of Donald Trump making posts online, which involved plodding through hundreds of archive photos (and coming up with nothing), so I said to hell with it and just found a photo of a guy making posts online. The demotivator showed up a little bit later. I do think that Nick's screen name was behind a lot of the term's popularity (could never find a source for this but I know it's true). But just having one person as a lead image seems inapt to me -- what would you say to a collage of a few different images? I am not at my computer right now, but in a couple days I will be, and I can show you what I mean. jp× g 21:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
These images might also work
jonas ( talk) 22:27, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Missed this discussion when removing the image yesterday, which JPxG has added back. I'd agree with upthread comments that a 2003 meme isn't a great illustration of a term that didn't appear until 2014. Would also say that it doesn't match the text, that an "extremely online" person is someone too immersed in internet pop culture, where a "serious business" internet user is one who takes a trivial online discussion too seriously. (Looks to camera.) If we can draw a thread between the two memes then we should do so in "Background", which currently doesn't go back any further than 2010, and put the image there. -- Lord Belbury ( talk) 08:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Extremely online has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: April 5, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Extremely online article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from Extremely online appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 6 December 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
Yoninah (
talk)
21:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Created/expanded by JPxG ( talk). Self-nominated at 02:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC).
@ Headbomb:: When I wrote the article, I included a dril quote at the top (in lieu of an image illustration) since dril's mentioned by a lot of the sources as being a quintessential example of the phenomenon. If you'd like, I can add some more references/content to support that; but I think it should stay for now. I am working on finding an appropriate image illustration, and then I'd be fine with moving it down to the sections where it talks about him specifically. jp× g 04:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I think it's funny but it's really not that relevant to the lead. DemonDays64 ( talk) 07:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't like the photo of the man. Nothing about it indicates that he's not merely normally online. Benjamin ( talk) 06:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Editoneer ( talk · contribs) 10:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Events and phenomena can themselves be Extremely Online;, I thought you already said so by saying above
a person or subject.
latter half of the 2010s (...) increasing prevalence and notability of Internet phenomena in all areas of life.What made it so relevant now and not pre-latter-half?
Extremely Online people are interested in topics "no normal, healthy person could possibly care about",, did you forget a "that"? And I'll personally object to that, because I believe I'm Extremely Online but I'm not interested in dubious topics. You also didn't use "are described as", and you stated it as a fact.
the Dirtbag Left, a coterie of underemployed and overly online millennials who were radicalised by the Iraq war and the 2008 financial crisis, have no time for the pieties of traditional political discourse"; our article on them talks about their "
left-wing politics that eschews civility in order to convey a left-wing populist message". These seem to be in general agreement: is there a disconnect between them, and if so, what would be a better thing to say? jp× g 18:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
blackpilledmeans?
and the doomer's "blackpilled despair" combines with spending "too much (...)", combined?
is combined. Editoneer ( talk) 06:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
eclectic, what is ecletic?
Wint
In the shown example, pointing directions at the audience isn't encyclopedic.
have described as Extremely Online, have been?
You can argue the changes at any time, good luck. Editoneer ( talk) 17:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
and 2020 campaign, I don't feel is grammatically correct without some "the". But I consider this can be hotfixed, so all the progress is done, I'm putting it in second opinion. Editoneer ( talk) 14:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Generally an article's capitalization style should be reviewed with respect to WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. Since sources don't usually cap "extremely online" (when they use it in a sentence in the sense meant by this article), we should be using lowercase in Wikipedia. I realize JPxG disagrees, but the open RM suggests that this should have been fixed before this could be a Good Article (caps for emphasis). But Editoneer already flipped that bit, it appears, so we're addressing it in arrears. Dicklyon ( talk) 23:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I saw this in the GA listings and I thought it was a really interesting concept, but I think the article is weak because it relies on describing the concept mainly through examples. That makes it hard to really grasp why this is something beyond just "folks who use the internet too much" or "internet celebrities", and probably even harder for folks outside of the online-culture interest to understand.
Are there any journals that do a more broad over-view of this topic? Like the cause... or maybe how it fits into the 2010+ zeitgeist? Are there more statistics? Are there any quotable expert opinions on Extremely Online-ness? Are there any attempts to standardize the definition, like hours of engagement or number of posts? It is totally controlled (like some of the political examples) or is it a compulsive, additive facet of internet use? Is it explicitly an active descriptor? Like, content-creators, bloggers, taste-makers, activists etc.?
I don't need answers obviously- but that's the direction I'd take for an encyclopedic article. Cheers, Estheim ( talk) 14:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Is there a reason that the article uses “Extremely Online” rather than “extremely online”? It seems like we treat the article’s subject as a proper noun, even though we sometimes use it as an adjective. I feel inclined to make changes to the capitalization that we are using in the article, though I wanted to put this on the talk page before moving forward to see if anybody else has thoughts. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 07:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
This includes over-capitalization for signification, i.e. to try to impress upon the reader the importance or specialness of something in a particular context.It's obvious that the term "extremely online" is used in its special meaning throughout the article, so there's no need to provide semantic distinction. No such user ( talk) 13:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. Per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS, the term would need to be consistently capitalized in reliable sources and opposers note the evidence does not support that. ( non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 04:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Extremely Online →
Extremely online – The first sentence in
MOS:CAPS specifies that Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization
and advises to capitalize only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of [...] sources
. While some sources used in the article do capitalize the term "Extremely Online", it is far from universal practice: lowercase is used in the dedicated piece by
RealLife magazine, and then by
HuffPost,
WaPo,
Newyorker,
Vice,
NyMag,
NyMag,
Pitchfork... As a matter of fact, I checked first few pages of a news search for "extremely online" (with quotes) and the majority of articles uses lowercase.
Besides, I find the capitalized phrase as currently used in the article Extremely Jarring: per
MOS:EMPHCAPS, over-capitalization for signification, i.e. to try to impress upon the reader the importance or specialness of something in a particular context.
No such user (
talk)
08:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization, without qualification. This is a general principle which is often used in requested moves, see for instance Talk:War on cancer#Requested_move_16_November_2019, or Talk:Syrian civil war#Requested_move_11_February_2021 where MOS:CAPS is cited in the closure justification. There is also WP:NCCAPS specifically for article titles, but since the first sentence of that policy is
Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper namethat doesn't really help your case. Rublov ( talk) 18:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sourcesper MOS:CAPS. Worth noting that we do have articles titled Very good very mighty and Very erotic very violent which seem more directly analogous to this article than your examples. Rublov ( talk) 20:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
"Other societal phenomena like the Lost Generation, American Dream, and Second Great Awakening are capitalized the same way, for the same reason, and have been for a long time." That's a badly false analogy, for numerous reasons, the most obvious of which is that reliable sources near-uniformly capitalize those things, and do not for "extremly online"; and the latter is not in much of any way comparable to a generational monicker (which is conventionally capitalized as such a noun (thus " Generation X"), nor a central tenet, belief system, or doctrine of a society (even these are usually lower case, e.g. manifest destiny, per MOS:DOCTCAPS), nor a massive global cultural shift as named in historical hindsight (see also the Rennaissance and Industrial Revolution, versus the sexual revolution and the civil rights movement). Likening "extremely online" to these thigns isn't comparing apples and oranges, but comparing apples and lug nuts. And DOCTCAPS could not exist if JPxG's implication that WP capitalized such things generally were actually true. The truth is the exact opposite: titles like Lost Generation and Second Great Awakening are the rare and minor exception, not the rule. The very fact that we have Civil rights movement not Civil Rights Movement basically already tells you how this is going to conclude. If sources only half the time or so capitalize something of serious international, historical imporatance and WP thus lower-cases it, then WP is certainly not going to capitalize some bit of Internet jargon just because some people like to upper-case it to be arch and amusing. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
PS: After poring over the article on a cleanup run, I also observe that much of the directly quoted source material from the news mentioning this phrase put it in lower case. I think that clinches it. This has been capitalized in this article to date simply for
WP:ILIKEIT reasons. " Changing the title would change the scope of the article" = a very strange idea. There's no evidence to support such a notion, or article titles would virtually never change case on Wikipedia. I think JPxG maybe confusing the idea "a phrase can have two or more meanings" with "there are two or more encyclopedic topics vying for this title"; the latter is not the case.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
02:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
What's with the unexplained creapy 2012 tweet in the lead? I think I'll remove it and see if anyone comes back with a reason to put it back. Dicklyon ( talk) 23:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Ironic for this to be an issue here, but should this article be using the off-brand dril avatar? It was thoughtfully retired from the dril article in favour of a plain blue circle a couple of years ago. -- Lord Belbury ( talk) 12:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
@ JPxG the image might have been added to the article 7 months ago, but it was uploaded in 2008. The " demotivational poster" meme format is entirely outdated and is essentially from another era of the internet as "extremely online". I get why the Chapo image shouldnt be the lead image but a 13 year old meme is almost hilariously out of place and has nothing to do with this article. Might as well use this instead. jonas ( talk) 16:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, when I first wrote the article, I'd used the embedded dril tweet in the place where a lead image would normally be. At some point this was swapped out and put further down the article (the idea being that it needed to be directly next to the part of the body text where said tweet was referenced). After that went to the pot, I went around trying to find a photo of Donald Trump making posts online, which involved plodding through hundreds of archive photos (and coming up with nothing), so I said to hell with it and just found a photo of a guy making posts online. The demotivator showed up a little bit later. I do think that Nick's screen name was behind a lot of the term's popularity (could never find a source for this but I know it's true). But just having one person as a lead image seems inapt to me -- what would you say to a collage of a few different images? I am not at my computer right now, but in a couple days I will be, and I can show you what I mean. jp× g 21:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
These images might also work
jonas ( talk) 22:27, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Missed this discussion when removing the image yesterday, which JPxG has added back. I'd agree with upthread comments that a 2003 meme isn't a great illustration of a term that didn't appear until 2014. Would also say that it doesn't match the text, that an "extremely online" person is someone too immersed in internet pop culture, where a "serious business" internet user is one who takes a trivial online discussion too seriously. (Looks to camera.) If we can draw a thread between the two memes then we should do so in "Background", which currently doesn't go back any further than 2010, and put the image there. -- Lord Belbury ( talk) 08:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)