Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Lamest edit wars

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Flyingidiot (talk | contribs) at 18:03, 31 January 2013 (→The word "Lame"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconDepartment of Fun Project‑class Bottom‑importance
WikiProject iconThis page is supported by the Department of Fun, which aims to provide Wikipedians with fun so that they stay on Wikipedia and keep on improving articles. If you have any ideas, do not hesitate to post them to the discussion page or access our home page to join the Department of Fun.Department of FunWikipedia:Department of FunTemplate:WikiProject Department of FunDepartment of Fun articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
BottomThis page has been rated as Bottom-importance on the importance scale.

Isn't this too Long?

I suggest spilt it like BJAODN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.38.70.7 (talk) 10:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No way! If you do that ill revert you over & over again! just kidding. But I think this is more convenient as it is.Assistant N (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lame...

I revel at this articles "lameness"! Jdaniels15 (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly feel that this page is, in itself, an edit war. Should it even exist?Jdaniels15 (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it edit-war or edit war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdaniels15 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like "editwar". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too long a page, POV on many places?

I believe that the page is very much POV when it comes to certain places, like when the birth year for Nancy Reagan was being discussed [I believe it to be perfectly correct a topic for a discussion/edit war]

Proposing to trim the article so that it is far more readable to anyone. Possibly include the number of edits and the time period, to just give a brief idea of the scale of the war?

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an article and its not to be encyclopedic or abid by the rules. It is fun. The same way the entire Calvin and Hobbes comics collection is fun, or would you trim because 26 years of strips make it too long to read?! As for the edit wars they are not always lame because of the subject of the discussion, but because of the way discussions are carried out, usually involving total disregard for any and every possible wiki rule, trolling, personal insults, ressurecting of wars carried in battles in other possibly unrelated talk pages, sockpuppets, POV, reverting consensus decisions without bringing new reputable sources, article ownership syndrome, just to name a few.

As for the Nancy Reagan Date of Birth issue, the lame aspect is the fact it was re edited and ressurected a few times after the first apparently quite strong consensus was established. Yet I would agree that it does pale in lameness compared with most of the other examples.Learningnave (talk) 12:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly right, this is a sort of - And finally... at the end of the news where nonsens and frippery and record for entertainment, wonder and as a salutatory lesson. It is not part of the encyclopedia. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 07:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Barefoot#Going_barefoot

Yes, they are arguing about being barefoot. Including the veracity of "studies" done by people who catologue foot abrasions. You can't make this stuff up. Does this qualify as lame enough? --Sue Rangell[citation needed] 23:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Verifiability

Should we say please? Is it helpful to say you ought? Disputes over the precise wording of two sentences escalated into reams of heated discussion on the talk page, while dozens of reverts were racked up over the course of January. Bold, Revert, Discuss was invoked, leading to page protection when the editor who made the Bold edit asserted that 'Revert' referred to reverting the revert of that edit. An eventual calming down led to one editor editing one of the sections under scrutiny only for the reverting to begin again. Oh and some unrelated vandalism or test editing, in case things weren't confused enough. Seems to have calmed again, for now at least, but it's not resolved! All this over whether or not policy should say 'please'. CarrieVS (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek (I|i)nto Darkness

Not adding it yet, but consider this a nomination. Even aside from Randall Munroe calling it his favorite edit war, I think it's earned the honor. Jesse B. Hannah (talk) 07:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For posterity, one user for whom the frustration proved too much to handle. Jesse B. Hannah (talk) 07:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not actually an edit war, is it? It's just a contentious discussion. Powers T 12:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, unfortunately I have to agree with that. It's a hilariously pedantic contentious discussion, and in some sense deserves to be immortalized in a list like this. But it's not technically an edit war. (Of course the only thing that would make this more awesomer is if the discussion over whether this qualifies as an "edit war" devolved into a multi-ten-thousand word "contentious discussion"... I'm game, anybody else? :D ) ---24.93.16.177 (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I think this is only NOT an edit war because the edit in question requires admin assistance (a title move). The other edit wars on this page can all be done quietly, without fanfare. Fieari (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly a contentious discussion about a proposed edit is indistinguishable from an edit war for the purposes of this discussion. For you to claim that it is hilarious clearly shows your lack of respect for the Wikipedia COS, and you should be banned forever. This meta-discussion about the other discussion however is indistinguishable from a meta-edit war and should consequently not be eligible for nomination. (Dear humorless admins, this is a joke in response to the above contribution from .177.) -W0lfie (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the article specifically says that discussions on the talk page must NEVER be included here, no matter how pedantic they are, to encourage discussion. Mynameisntbob1 (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There hasn't been edit warring over the proposed move, but there has been edit warring over capitalization within the article itself that is strongly linked to the discussion. I think this qualifies it for an entry in this guide. Ibadibam (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This. Ever since the announcement of the title (looking at the actual page's edit history) there have been more edits, reversions, and re-reversions over the single capitalization than many of edit wars already listed here. It's just a bonus that the ensuing argument is long enough to be the screenplay of a feature film on its own (according to one of the participants). —Jesse B. Hannah (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It escalated after I said that and now clearly belongs here. It accidentally (and briefly) became an admin edit war to, which deserves special mention. 129.170.195.151 (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The title of this section should be "Star Trek (i|I)nto Darkness". 68.96.94.208 (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes there are big issues at stake, the debate about which becomes manifested over a few particular examples. If you look at just one of those examples out of the context of the big issue, it will seem lame. But it's not necessarily lame. It's just where the discussion about a big issue that could potentially affect myriads of articles happens to be occurring. I believe this case falls into that category. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek into Darkness and xkcd

I see there is an enormous discussion about how to capitalize Star Trek into Darkness, so much so that xkcd has lampooned the situation. I'm not sure whether it belongs here or not. --Slashme (talk) 11:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say that, but you beat me to it. :( Kayau (talk · contribs) 14:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, but a discussion about the comic itself is now going about whether it should be mentioned within the article. It just keeps getting better! Paxsimius (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I can't believe I missed the previous section. Anyway, I decided to WP:Be bold and add it. --Slashme (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Lame"

Probably isn't the best term to use to characterize the article. 174.115.220.57 (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would indeed be bad for an article but it's not an article. It's in the Wikipedia:Project namespace and therefore not part of the encyclopedia. The top of the page says "This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Please do not take it seriously." The word "lamest" seems fine here, and it has been used since the page started in 2004. It shouldn't be changed now. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Worst Edit Wars' would still be better. --flying idiot 18:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Lamest_edit_wars&oldid=535892089"