Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-03-26/Comment

Discuss this story

It's not enough to remove the AFD message from the article, as a bot will put it back again. You must also remove the line {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} from the AFD page. See this AN thread. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great article - thanks for contributing this. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying the rules for all to see, clear guidelines are just what are needed at this time. Thanks, Mat ty.007 11:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A link to Wikipedia:Rules for Fools would help (it's only linked indirectly). — Edokter (talk) — 12:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone knowledgeable could update the Wikipedia:Rules for Fools with some of the guidance here, specially on AFD practice. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Love that rhyme: Rules for Fools!--Mishae (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does the guidance also apply to AFDay ridiculousness in the Main Page DYK section?--ukexpat (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ukexpat: Per the RfC: "There is consensus for having April Fools DYKs be clever puns rather than poop jokes and sexual innuendos" and "There is consensus against banning April Fools DYK hooks". Sven Manguard Wha? 07:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess that's an improvement, in theory...--ukexpat (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "we're an encyclopaedia, so we hate jokes" attitude that's taken over Wikipedia in recent years is unfortunate. Nominating and re-nominating WP:BJAODN for deletion six times is one example, the repeated removal of jokes from articles specifically about an individual genre of jest (such as light bulb joke) is another. We have users who have nothing better to do than watchlist those articles just to revert all new contributions on sight, which is sad. We don't remove pictures of feces or of a penis from those respective articles, but heaven forbid that an article about jokes contain a joke. K7L (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@K7L: The alternative (extreme) is incorporating all of [1] or [2]...
Each of the articles in Category:Joke cycles (and related subcats) do (or should) include example(s) that are cited, to make the topic of the article clear, but do not go beyond that (or shouldn't) lest they turn into a joke-variant compilation.
Eg. You have two cows lists 6 examples cited to an article in a 1944 linguistics journal; but if someone tried to copy all the variants into that article, it wouldn't be an "article" anymore. - I listed some more potential sources on the talkpage a few years ago, if you'd like to help improve the article. :) –Quiddity (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I could cite ten broadcast engineering textbooks as WP:RS that NTSC video has long been despised as "Never Twice the Same Colour" but it would still be reverted. These are taken to Talk:Backronym to die, not to be evaluated in good faith for sources or notability to our backronym article. That talk page and article history (and those of many similar articles) are full of other examples. Any requests for sources, notability or anything else are merely pretext. The same is likely true for most or all of the other joke types. It's notable, it's properly cited but if one user doesn't like jokes it's gone... even in articles specifically about those classes of joke. K7L (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it tradition by now to AfD Earth? Seriously though, thanks for this, it'll help me come Tuesday :D Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 01:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know, all of the editors AfD'ing Earth are in blatant WP:COI, which is an abuse of the system. K7L (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So has Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion been nominated for WP:FA more than once? -- llywrch (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Please do not nominate Earth for deletion. It's been done eight times already, and the sixth was the last time that anyone even bothered joining in on the "debate". Remember: Notability is Not Temporary. Carrite (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And Wikivoyage is featuring on the main page, Wikipedia, as destination of the month. Did you guys ever wondered there's a country exist on this planet called Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.190.168.183 (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could apply the advice about trying something new to the day after: How about this year we skip the very traditional post-event fight about whether April Fools' Day jokes should be banned? That's happened more times than Earth has been nominated for deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WhatamIdoing: There was a rather clear consensus against that when it was suggested last year. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - There was a consensus against banning it. There wasn't a requirement that we do it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - WhatamIdoing: True, but practically speaking, banning the RfCs might be the only way to prevent them. A large part of the reason I created this op-ed was in the hopes that if everyone on both sides knew where to draw the line, the anger that April Fools' Day edits have caused in past years can be prevented. That being said, Jokes are the path to the Requests for Comment. Jokes lead to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering. I sense many jokes in Wikipedia. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ah, perhaps you can be lured to the dark side of the farce? K7L (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In practice people will stick to the Wikipedia:April 1 guidelines (which was promoted as official policy by Jehochman yesterday for a while), the more restrictive the official guidelines become the more liberal the Wikipedia:April 1 guidelines will become. Therefore it's best to not impose too strict limitations on jokes/pranks. Count Iblis (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]