Talk:Portal:Whores

“	i think that's a great idea. you, as one of our most prolific editors, pretty much can do as you like, but i like this idea in particular.	„
—hipcrime

Gray 09:29, 30 January 2013 (EST)

I'm gonna have to agree with Meepsheep on this one. ••General Niggerson 10:08, 30 January 2013 (EST)

The whores category has over 500 pages, the IRC category (which also has a portal) doesn't even have a hundred. Elaborate how this portal isn't necessary. -Gray 10:28, 30 January 2013 (EST)

• I'm on the fence. Let's leave this open for a little while and see what other people think. --zaiger (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2013 (EST)

I vote keep. - Mr.Jonzz 18:07, 30 January 2013 (EST)

I also vote keep. DarkLordTR 18:17, 30 January 2013 (EST)DarkLordTR

Dump it. ••General Niggerson 18:18, 30 January 2013 (EST)

Any particular reason or just to keep your tongue firmly wedged up Meep's arsehole? - Mr.Jonzz 18:29, 30 January 2013 (EST)

I'll tell you mines if you tell me yours. ••General Niggerson 18:38, 30 January 2013 (EST)

It doesn't hurt anything having it, it collates a large number of articles, it looks good, OP regularly rotates/improves portals so stagnation isn't a problem... also cocks. - Mr.Jonzz 20:25, 30 January 2013 (EST)

Yeah, maybe you right, but the problem is: Meepsheep flushed it again... and yes, cocks.••General Niggerson 20:36, 30 January 2013 (EST)

The problem is that this encompasses every kind of article ED should not contain, ie ridden with "faggot" and other 13-year-old mannerisms. Gray did have a point about the dA portal, but in my opinion a web entity (Encyclopedia Dramatica's reach) is different than a broad term that every "people" article could fit into. The existence of this portal would just enable such content to continue to plague ED as it already has for years. ♥♥♥ 21:01, 30 January 2013 (EST)

I can totally see this but there are also plenty of whores we should have articles on. You could say the same thing about Portal:Faggotry. That being said Portal:Faggotry isn't a shining example of what a portal should be. What do you think about sprucing up category pages with fancy? Should tackling the articles then be the goal, since it's not the category's fault? Mike the Great (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2013 (EDT)

I've got no opinion on whether it should be a portal or not, but it looks good. I don't see any reason that sprucing up the category pages wouldn't accomplish the same thing, unless it's going into portal rotation. Gray is the only one who ever does anything with the portals that's not adding articles they wrote. There are plenty of new articles in the subject to keep it fresh Giovanna Plowman, Amanda Todd, Jolene JRyda. I guess the reason I wouldn't support it would be the fact that there are quite a few large categories like it that don't have or need portals. That being said there are also portals, notably Portal:LiveJournal that have no fucking use anymore whatsoever save historical reference. There's a faggot portal, why not a girl one? +1/2 Mike the Great (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2013 (EDT)

Undecided. If anyone can make a case for or against, have at it-- Talk to me|Contribs 00:24, 31 January 2013 (EST)

I think we should probably keep it but change the title to Portal:Worthless Whores - Mr.Jonzz 00:38, 31 January 2013 (EST)

Excuse me

Can haydendaft be added to the whore list?--Shoopdawoop6 20:31, 10 February 2013 (EST)

Yes. -Gray 20:34, 10 February 2013 (EST)