Talk:11B-X-1371

Notability

I have added a notability tag here, because I am concerned this may not meet notability for WP:Notability (events). Yes, there is coverage - but will it continue for more the the scope of one-two weeks? Ping User:Daniel Case. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I don't see this as an event so much as web content (since it's on YouTube and anyone can go view it there), governed by WP:WEBCRIT, specifically the footnotes referencing "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Daniel Case (talk) 06:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: I see your point. Through I am not sure I fully agree with it, I think AfD has many more pressing issues, and the entire topic of notability of urban myths is not one I am willing to pursue now. Maybe in few years :) Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Thanks (I would also argue for the continuing notability through some of the ciphers not being cracked yet). Based on that, I'm going to take the tag off if that's OK with you (my goal is to nominate this at DYK (where I suppose there might be more feedback about this issue). Daniel Case (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: I'll not restore the tag, it's fine to remove it. Cheers. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick note on "Sequel" and Mythbusting

The Daily Dot – The most disturbing viral video now has a sequel, and we spoke to the creator

Apparently, the author himself decided to have an interview with the Daily Dot, and revealed some information behind the video. How are we gonna add that in?

--Wuzh (talk) 12:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

We look at it and see how we can do this. Daniel Case (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm ... very interesting. I think this demands a new section. Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it wound being several grafs adding to existing sections. More work than I thought. Daniel Case (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Parker Wright

The whole article kind of reads like an advertisement. It's not proven that this guy was the creator, even if a couple of influential people believe him to be. It really sounds like this guy wrote all that in the article in order to further his claim. The article needs to be a little less "conclusive" since there is no conclusive evidence that he is the actual creator. 50.113.90.43 (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Uh, the article never states conclusively that Wright was the creator. It just says he "appeared to have established himself" as such, and that The Daily Dot accepted his claim, or appears to. Daniel Case (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

It absolutely implies it. "Three months after the initial controversy, an individual going by the name of Parker Warner Wright appeared to have established himself as the creator of the video. He explained to The Daily Dot that it was intended as an art project, and released a sequel video, '11B-3-1369' on his YouTube channel. As a way of proving his identity, he challenged viewers to create an exact duplicate of his plague doctor mask." This passage in the header of the article reads like an advertisement for this guy's claim. Then the entire section about the guy who almost certainly was trying to steal the video's thunder (I was heavily involved in working out the puzzles), when in reality, this guy was less than a footnote in the history of this whole thing. Plus, I think citing the Daily Dot is like citing Upworthy. It's a clickbait site that I think should be up there with Daily Mail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.113.90.43 (talk) 06:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, I will soften that language to "claimed to" ... I thought "appeared to" created enough distance from stating it as an indisputable fact, but I see now that some readers may put too much on "established" in that sentence.

Remember that the important thing here is that where the truth isn't known or we put in articles what can be verified as having been reported in reliable sources (which of course puts on us the responsibility to write these things in such a way as to make certain we are not stating in Wikipedia's voice that this established fact. Unfortunately people don't always realize they have to do this.

As to your misgivings about The Daily Dot, perhaps its headlines are clickbait alright but the key thing is, is its content generally seen as making a good-faith effort to report things truthfully, subject to editorial oversight? I think we use it as a source widely enough to say that consensus is that we feel it does. If it reaches the Mail's depths of repeatedly showing reckless disregard for the truth, of repeatedly publishing outright fabrications, then we would discourage its use as a source. If you have concerns about TDD greater than those related to its use in this article, I invite you to bring them up in the same forum where the Mail's ban was discussed. Daniel Case (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

"Red Lips"

"RedLips" backwards is spilder, Danish for wastes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.141.163.74 (talk) 09:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Missing Categories and WikiProjects

This article is looking great but it seems to be more categories it can go under. I was also thinking that this should go under the WikiProject Horror since some have classified it as such.--Paleface Jack (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

"Creepy puzzle" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Creepy puzzle. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 19#Creepy puzzle until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

02/04/2022

Robert C Christain 196.74.43.47 (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)