Wikipedia talk:Lamest edit wars/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3

Contents

Hurricane gender war

Between these edit on 1979 Atlantic hurricane season there were a total of six reversions by the two editors over the simple question of whether Hurricane Bob of 1979 or Hurricane George of 1950 was the first hurricane with a male name.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You've got to admit, it's a good catch! Though George (1950) should be considered neuter being part of the phonetic alphabet (?). Anyway, I think the old Zeta discussion is also worthy. Pobbie Rarr 15:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Stockholm

Stockholm is the largest city in Scandinavia. Everyone knows that! Er... [1] no, it isn't! Copenhagen is bigger No, Stockholm is: [2]. And back and forth we go, several times, with it coming to rest (for now) at this diff [3]. Meanwhile the talk page lays out in excruciating detail the many ways in which you can measure bigness... all of which it turns out numerically Stockholm is biggest by. But that matters not, does it? Stockholm cheated by including more land area than is "fair". Who cares, really? ++Lar: t/c 14:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

same people who care as to what is the second biggest city in the UK.Geni 14:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Birmingham! No, Manchester! No, actually it's Stoke. Or maybe that one place in the Cotswolds whose name escapes me.

++Lar: t/c 14:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

FOi. It's definitely Manchester. Bugger off :-) --Khendon 18:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
It certainly isn't anywhere in the Cotswolds, no big cities round here matey. Probably Birmingham but, indeed, who cares? :) --kingboyk 14:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Sarcasm is lost on you, innit, mate? ...and stop Stock, er, stalking me! :) ++Lar: t/c 15:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The moment I stop checking your contribs when I'm bored (=="stalking") is the moment you've become boring - and you wouldn't want that, would you?! :P --kingboyk 15:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You know...

It'd be fucking awesome if this talk page made the list. Just a thought... Ah well...to wish impossible things... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Durandal1717 (talkcontribs) .

Lamest edit war ever?

I think this is a candidate for lamest edit war ever. First off, its an article about a freaking game on The Price Is Right (lame). It's not even one of the good ones, all the contestant has to do is decide whether or not to switch the prices or not (lame). And the edit war is about what is probably the least consequential of all the inconsequential pieces of info in the article: whether you can win by doing nothing or not (lame). And its not even about whether that piece of info is true or not, its about grammar (lame). And its not even about whether the sentence is technically grammatically wrong or not, just whether a word in it is redundant (lame). And most of the edit war revolved around the meaning of the word "can" (lame). Combine my being a dick with his being wrong and it is like a perfect storm of lameness. Recury 19:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but it looks like the only thing keeping you two from going at it more was a potential 3RR. Yes, lame, and incredibly so. And I like the "at least one side has admitted they were being a dick" angle, too. Confusing Manifestation 01:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
This is awesome. You deserve a prize or something. Maybe the "Aluminum Grail of Intelectual Kleptomania". Or is it "Aluminium Grail of Intelectual Kleptomania"? Either way, nice work. I can now sleep peacefully, knowing there is nothing lamer I'm missing out on. -Litefantastic 01:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
That IS very lame, so lame I'm almost tempted to join in: why not delete the whole damn line? I see that even now, January 2007, TPIRFanSteve is STILL messing with that line. Nobody cares! bernlin2000 20:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Everyone loses their minds

This was on WP:AN/I, and has been moved here for lack of a better target. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

If this is intended purely as a historical record of the conversation, I'd suggest putting it in a subpage somewhere. This is rather a lot to drop into a live talk page like this. Bryan 07:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah... I'm just not sure where. This is one LAME discussion. Grandmasterka 07:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"Lawyer"

Anyone else think the recent ruckus at WP:WL qualifies as lameness? 68.39.174.238 23:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Can "Lame" be considered NPOV?

The American Heritage Dictionary definition of "lame" in this context is "Weak and ineffectual; unsatisfactory". If that's not bias, I don't know what is. So if NPOV is non-negotiable, I think the article has to be retitled. Ribonucleic 22:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Does a humor article even need to be NPOV? Doesn't being a humor article almost ensure that this article is not NPOV? --Wildnox 22:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
"Non-negotiable" didn't seem to leave a lot of wiggle room. In any case, "lame" seems a little more shaming of the edit-warriors involved than is strictly necessary to document the phenomenon. Ribonucleic 22:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Once again... NPOV doesn't come into play at all here, as it is a humor page and therefore POV by default, if it did the page would be deleted in an instant.--Wildnox 01:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
WP:NPOV covers articles. This is not an article, as it is in the Wikipedia namespace. -- Coneslayer 22:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Very true. There are a lot of inherently POV things in Wikipedia space, which is perfectly fine. WP:BJAODN (what is or isn't funny) and Wikipedia:Unusual articles (what is or isn't "unusual") come to mind. Grandmasterka 01:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
And don't forget WP:DAFT. :) --Stratadrake 04:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

How nerdy can you get?

Personal Concerns

I think this section should be removed. It serves only to mock those of our critics who have had disputes regarding their own articles, and is likely to simply inflame the situation further. — Werdna talk criticism 09:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"It serves only to mock..." Untrue. It serves also as humor, entertainment, history, and an informative and interesting look at what can happen in a project like this. Most importantly it serves as an eye-opener/warning about how you look if you get drawn into an edit war.
Also, we don't remove information just because people don't like it. 208.103.180.57 16:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

{{LAME}}

I've created this template for talk pages. Feel free to use it, but be wary of using it on talk pages of fanboy type TV shows and Guinea Pigs. Those users tend to take their edit wars very seriously. -- Malber (talkcontribs) 12:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That template doesn't help the encyclopedia. And apparently something similar has been through TfD before. -- Steel 12:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it went through TfD a year ago. But votes for deletion are not decisions set in stone. And how does reminding editors not to engage in edit wars over trivial matters such as where to place a comma not help the project? -- Malber (talkcontribs) 13:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't (not help the project). But there are thoughtful ways to do so and ones somewhat less thoughtful. I haven't went off and looked at the deleted template (some admin must have thought it pretty egregiously off, though, which is a hint) to see but I just don't think a template is likely to come off as highly considerate of the sensibilities of others in this case. ++Lar: t/c 13:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, well I guess this is serious business! -- Malber (talkcontribs) 13:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I went and looked at your version. I thought it was fairly innocuous. But I'm not sure I follow your comment about it being serious... Maybe you might want to contest the deletion at the deletion review page. ++Lar: t/c 15:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Serious as in people who would find offense at this template take their edit wars too seriously and wouldn't get the joke. I could take this to DRV, but since the original one went through TfD with only two votes to keep I think it would be a losing battle. This was speedy deleted (with no CSD template applied) by a newer admin citing WP:IAR in a discussion on WP:ANI. IAR is a problem when admins use it to justify actions taken before a consensus has a chance to build. -- Malber (talkcontribs) 17:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Er....? -- Steel 17:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If anyone is willing to take up the torch, here is the original version of the template:

Clowns! Lamest edit wars/Archive 2 has been listed at Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Please bear this in mind, keep some perspective, and stay cool while editing.

It's not the greatest, so feel free to improve it if you like. -- Malber (talkcontribs) 17:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

My deletion hardly requires a deletion review. If anyone thinks this has a chance of surviving a deletion debate and will help the encyclopedia in some way they're welcome to restore it. -- Steel 17:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't refering to your deletion. The original one was done by a new admin citing IAR. (Closing comments: "felxing my IAR muscles.") Yours was based on CSD G4 which may apply in the sense that this was TfD'ed a year ago, but it's not an identical template (as far as I know). -- Malber (talkcontribs) 19:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see where I'm getting confused. There's a Template:Lame and a Template:LAME. -- Steel 11:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment the only way to solve this is for Steel to delete the template and User:Malber to recreate it. Repeat ad infinitum, and then chronicle it on the name WP:LAME namespace.--Isotope23 19:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Atlantic records incident

There was a vandal incident at the Atlantic Records page where a lot of users were blanking the page and putting in YOU SUCK or just plain adding it in that had to result in it getting protected. Would this constitute as an edit war, and would it be lame? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starhood` (talkcontribs)

Nope. That's just repeat vandalism, this is more for edit wars over lame inconsequential things. --Wildnox 20:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I Totally Love Wikipedia

I've been gone for a year, but when tonight I clicked onto Wikipedia's Lamest Edit Wars for no particular reason, and started howling over just the descriptions alone, I realized how much I've missed this place. So I'm coming back, but I will try to behave. Bless you all. Mothperson cocoon 00:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we include this?

I've just enjoyed the best laugh the Wikipedia Signpost ever gave me. This comes from the Finnish Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-10-23/Interwiki report. In the past, some of the more memorable controversies have included: a lengthy discussion on the correct spelling of pizza (fi:pizza) in Finnish (which, as it turned out, is "pizza" instead of "pitsa")... Think it's worth creating an international section? Durova 18:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Diff links

You know, it would be so much more useful if people would link to actual diffs of the lameness, rather than just the article. It's pretty much impossible to find the lameness if it happened more than a few days ago, since people don't tend to record the dates it happened either. Stevage 02:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I was just going to suggest inclusion of a date myself. Happy to see I'm not the only one. Han-Kwang 18:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, when I was involved in the {{LAME}} debacle some people said, "That edit war happened over a year ago!" as if there is a statute of limitations to lameness. —Malber (talk ·  contribs) 18:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean. A date would just be helpful to find the edit war in the history. Han-Kwang 19:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm just being lame. —Malber (talk ·  contribs) 19:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

removed the history/page talk links

195.84.40.9 (talk · contribs) removed the history/page talk links that I added without explanation. I am restoring them. Han-Kwang 13:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Istanbul (Not Constantinople)

Honestly, people--call it what you want, but in the end, that's really nobody's business but the Turks, okay? nmw 23:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Greatest Page Ever

This is surely the greatest page on all of Wikipedia...hours of hilarious reading here!! Love it!! Burtonpe 15:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, oh my god I laughed so hard. The best one is the Cranky Kong line. (I know talk pages are not message boards but I couldn 't help myself) Quadzilla99 23:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Nominating Talk:Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands

A micronation, but not just any micronation: the name says it all (or should that be Queendom?) Not that there's anything wrong with micronations per se, or with LGBT issues per se, but does a completely uninhabited archipelago off the coast of Australia really merit 68kb of talk page debate? They haven't even issued postage stamps. Durova 01:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggested rearrainge

I suggest this page would be more instructive if it was arrainged based on why the participants warred, EG. "Being absolutely sure they were right", "Obsessive accuracy" (For things like the diameter of the Death Star, etc), "Overzealous application of policy", etc. This would probably make it more instructive of why these things happen and what the warning signs are. Any suggestions (Other then {{sofixit}})? 68.39.174.238 06:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems like that might require a little mindreading in some cases, and in many cases, could constitute a violation of WP:AGF. For example, "the participants were morons" seems to me to be the probable reason in several cases, but it would be extremely inappropriate for me to say which ones. :) Xtifr tälk 11:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting drawing conclusions about the motivations of the participants, but looking at the concerns reflected by the war, EG. The infamous Baltic port town name dispute would be filed on as being a dispute between langauges, or something like that, not "The participants were being nationalistic" or whatever. 68.39.174.238 06:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC) PS. Yes, I know that sortof contradicts the examples above.

Suggested addition

A suggestion: Add the Harry Potter Info Box Colors edit war to the list. Also see here. Olin See also 20:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Added Tiger

I just boldly added Tiger to the Wording section (although the war eventually expanded to cover more than just the wording). I stumbled across this one several weeks ago while doing disambiguation cleanup, and was truly stunned at the scope and silliness of the debate, but didn't know there was a place where it could be properly honored till just now. Having looked at some of the other examples here, I truly think the Tiger war deserves its place on this page, but if I've overstepped any boundaries, please feel free to revert. cheers, Xtifr tälk 12:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Added Eris (dwarf planet)

It's been a few months, but it was a pretty lame edit war that really did end with pie. Boldly added it, as edit war was lamely severe enough to have its own talk page following an archival. --Pipian 18:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

WWE Armageddon

I added WWE Armageddon. it could use a little tweaking though... -- Scorpion0422 02:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Cat

Tch, that is indeed a lame edit war. Especially when everyone knows the correct term is can opener. Confusing Manifestation 13:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Gay Nigger Association of America: include or remove?

As a quick poll of talk page users:

There (currently) exists an entry on the GNAA deletion wars. While this does not qualify as an edit war per se, I'd say, given the extraordinary lameness and vitriol involved, that it qualifies for this page.

So, given that I expect disagreement from at least one contributor, I'll poll people: Should the GNAA deletion nomination wars be included or removed from this page? Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 04:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

IMO it is far too lame to remove. And I'd say repeatedly adding and removing an AfD template is close enough to an edit war for government work. Bryan 05:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Marshmallow

A user added the recent vandalism of Marshmallow to the "Miscellaneous" section of this page. I don't think it counts as an edit-war, as it was really repeated vandalism and reverts, not a content dispute. I don't want to remove it myself, however, as it may be a conflict of interest as I was one of the editors who helped to revert the hours on end of vandalism.

Hopefully, a neutral party and decide if this is an edit war or just vandalism: An anonymous user removed the section on marshmallow-related deaths twice, which were reverted because some editors wanted the removal discussed on the talk page first. The anonymous editor then decided to make a point by emphasizing the risk (to the point of hyperbole) and adding it to the introductory paragraph, claiming that we'd "convinced" him of the awful danger and if we didn't want that section removed (nevermind that we just wanted discussion first), we should strongly emphasize it.

Keeping the entry here as-is seems to imply that the vandal was making good faith edits that other users disagreed with, when there were in reality only two good faith edits before it became vandalism. So even if it's kept, the description should be made more accurate. Something like "Should removing a section be discussed on the talk page first, or just done and then supported by hours of WP:POINT vandalism if others disagree?" --Icarus (Hi!) 18:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I looked at it, 'cause I really didn't think it was an edit war, but it looked like one based on my 5ive minutes' examination. I wouldn't mind it being removed here as it didn't seem that the edit war went on very long. "Lamest ever" to me means one that has long duration, many edits around teh clock, or really bitter intractability. Vote for removal. David Spalding (  ) 00:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Kinda agreed, I looked it up when wondering how exactly to describe it, but from what little I saw it seemed more of an off-kilter-yet-remotely-reasonable content dispute rather than a truly pointless one, as this page is intended for. Removing it for now. --Stratadrake 06:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Links to lame edit wars

Why are there no page history links to some of these edit wars? I would love to read some of them. Currently to read these edit wars, I would have to go through months, if not years of edits to find the lame edit war. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Aren't you seeing clickable links for each title headline? Or are you asking something else? (scratches head) David Spalding (  ) 21:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry for not being clear, let me clarify, I just rewrote the question. Thanks in advance, Travb (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Hrm ... I use Lupin's pop-up tool (sorry, don't have link hand, try User:Lupin I think), which allows 1-click access to the history. Usually a History page is quite transparent about an edit war. But I see your point, it would be helpful if the listing said, "Little Bunny Fru-fru, editor war Jan - Mar, 2006; is the tail white or pink, like tailbones, everyone had an opinion,...." David Spalding (  ) 22:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups that is SO fucking cool. So using Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups, how can I quickly find the lame edit war for What would Jesus do?, for example.
What would Jesus do? 
Should the article link to Brian Boitano or What Would Brian Boitano Do?. Should a movie title be italicized? Did something happen in the middle of the 1990's or the mid- to late-1990's? These and other probing questions were at the heart of five-day long edit war between Anthony and Wik, during which the page had to be protected twice. The campaign spread to other pages, with What Would Brian Boitano Do? surviving a VfD listing by Wik.
WP:BB I will write up some invisible text on the page, using <!-- -->, so future editors include edit histories.
How about this: <!--PLEASE include two or three edit history links about the lame edit war.-->
I used Microsoft Word's find and replace feature, to quickly add this to all 21 categories.
Thanks Best wishes, Travb (talk) 11:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Help other wikipedians enjoy the lame edit war even more

New and old contributors: Help other wikipedians enjoy the lame edit war even more

Editors who added or will add a new lame edit war:

Since you are the most familar with your addition to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars, PLEASE take the time to include two or three edit history links about the lame edit war you added to this page.

These two or three edit history links will provide even more hours of laughter for other wikipedians. Thank you. Travb (talk) 11:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we need more discussion on this.

  1. Wikipeditor provides a history link per the hidden comment.
  2. Kusma removes the link, saying “don't point people too directly to sillyness”.
  3. Travb above says there should be history links.

If there is a general concern that history links point towards warring editors in too harsh a fashion, let's not include them — but in that case, we should also remove the links to the articles themselves, as they are not entertaining. How about either not including any links at all, or using links to history or talk pages (and, optionally, articles)?

  • If we must not use history or talk links, entries like mine that are not written in an entertaining way themselves should be removed or improved, otherwise the list becomes dull and pointless.
  • If we can use history links, should those be simple history links (à la [4]), or point to time periods with an edit war going on (for example, [5])?

Wikipeditor 21:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Memory hole

Started December 28, 2006
not archived, kept on main page

Getting long

This page is getting rather long; we should probably prune some of the less interesting entries. Some aren't even lame, or not edit wars, just pointers to some old dispute. >Radiant< 12:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't think of any on there I would feel comfortable removing at the moment; as the lameness grows, this ought to get split off into subpages by category. Grandmasterka 01:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Weblogs

Regarding this actually very short edit war, I only backed off because it wasn't worth an endless fight.

However, to this day, I know my position on that matter is factually correct; weblogs are indeed web applications. Sometimes, one cannot win a battle against someone who thinks they own a term (despite the fact that the term 'weblog' evolved since its creation). Especially one who never proved they were who they said they were. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 01:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing WP:LAME entries to talk

Started December 31, 2006
not archived, kept on main page

Over one exclamation mark

Obviously this article is mostly for humor, but sometimes more is at stake than meets the eye. A battle over a simple exclamation mark -- a seeming trifle -- in this case was actually a battle over Wikipedia's NPOV stance. A user thought he could end a sentence with a '!' because the sentence was about something 'really bizarre'.

Sometimes a fine point of detail has enormous ramifications that are not immediately visible. 208.103.180.57 16:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This is also lame.

I ran across them the other day, eight variations on a single message + redirect categorization. I could imagine it now:

Template: R from other capitalization
Confusion over whether to use the Commonwealth or American spelling of 'capitalization' (or 'capitalisation'), whether or not the word in question should start with a capital letter or not, and whether the different templates should themselves be categorized as {{R from other capitalization}} -- all in an attempt to cater to individual editors' editing tastes.

But I don't think there have been any real "wars" over these templates. --Stratadrake 02:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yea, that just looks like standard redirectory disambiguation. 68.39.174.238 22:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

References

This would probably be more fun and a lot more helpful if we added in when and where these edit wars took place, possibly using the edit history as a reference. I'm almost questioning the validity of some solely because I can't find where they happened. --Wizardman 14:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Users (such as Travb) have been doing that already, adding editor's notes stating approximately when each one happened. But dates alone aren't enough, we need people to do research into the actual editwars and add links that illustrate actual phases that it went through (for example, my contributions to Gasoline/Petrol and The weather in London). --Stratadrake 14:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Weather stupidity

I'm a guilty party here I guess, but I'm being honest and reporting it for uninterested parties to look at for inclusion here. See Talk:Kyrill (storm)#Article name and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Meteorology#European windstorm article naming. Enough said really...--Nilfanion (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

POV elements in "Korean"

Changed "Chinese/Korean state" to neutral term "ancient kingdoms", and respective entries in Encylopedia Britannica have been used as a basis for the name of those kingdoms.

Images

Just wanted to say thanks to the editors who added images/funny captions. Really adds to this page! --Jfruh (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) This page was getting kind of long (over 80KB), so I thought some well chosen pictures would brighten things up; I think my best chosen image was Nicolaus Copernicus, but that my best caption was for the "Micronation" entry. I'm glad that other editors went ahead and added some of their own images - my favourite was the caption for "Sea of Japan". :-) --Grimhelm 14:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I just added a couple of images with (I hope) funny captions. But the captions now are a bit inconsistent. Any reason that some of them are italicized and others aren't? Shouldn't we use the same format throughout? — BrianSmithson 12:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Only if people can revert them to the ones they prefer, and then you revert their reversions back, etc... :) Totnesmartin 14:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The italicised captions are those referring to specific articles/edit-wars. The non-italics are for the two pictures in the introduction, and the meta-reference in the closing section, which refer to either edit wars in general or the page itself. --Grimhelm 16:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay. But I don't think this is being consistently implemented. The wheel war image, and the Jesus one, for example (and my favorite, by the way). — BrianSmithson 11:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. The Wheel War image seemed to comply already, so maybe I missed something(?) --Grimhelm 14:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. The wheel war and cannon images don't refer to specific edit wars, yet their captions are italicized (they seem to deal with edit waring in general). Right? — Brian (talk) 06:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please delete Goguryeo from this list

I know a lot of the edit wars on articles from this list are funny and irrevelent but I think it is inappropiate to include an issue like Goguryeo for a list of stupid and immature edit wars. The edit war over Goguryeo is not stupid or immature or irrevelent.

I know some of you are going to respond with a "this is the English wikipedia" but Goguryeo is an extremely important issue that is both cultural and emotional.

There haven't been any 3RR and anoymous editors waging move or edit wars on the Goguryeo article itself.

I ask for this article to be taken off the list and the template off the talk page of Goguryeo. Good friend100 22:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this is even on the list? Where? --Stratadrake 00:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
It used to be. -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Another pointless debate ("Clerks" or "Clerks."?)

Talk:Clerks#Misnamed.3F There was a dispute over whether the correct spelling is "Clerks" or "Clerks." Adamv88 20:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Page is getting Lame

Started February 14, 2007
not archived, still receiving comments

Page is hilarious

This page is a good laugh.. especially the bits about the "semen" article with the exhibitionist nerd, the "aspie" userbox and the teddy bear picture in the missionary position article. keep up the good work Kotare 00:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Baby (Dragon Ball)

Who decideds what gets added? I hate to say it, but I was involved in one that could be on here (actually, I was involved in the WWE Armageddon one as well). It's Baby (Dragon Ball), although the page was still called Bebi (Dragon Ball) when it happened. Back at the end of August, me and another user mader about 100 reverts in about a 8 hour period (resulting in both of us beng blocked) over whether or not the character (and the series he was in) was considered canon. The dispute came because Akira Toriyama (creater of the Dragon Ball franchise) designed the character and provided input on the series he was in (Dragon Ball GT), but did not creat GT or heavily involved. So doesn't 100 reverts in 1 day over wheter an animated character is canon or not lame enough? It was August 31 for those who want to check the page's edit history. TJ Spyke 09:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

100+ reverts of anything in eight hours counts as a lame edit war. --Carnildo 10:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Check out the page history here -- wow. --Stratadrake 13:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
PS: And of course, this being a wiki, nobody is singularly in charge of determine what does or does not get added. If it was pretty lame, it gets listed, at least until someone else comes along and disputes it (that being why WP:LAME is an edit war unto itself) --Stratadrake 13:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

24 Clock

I'm sure we all know and love 24, and the digital clock that serves as its unofficial mascot. However, there is one gripping question that is quite notable and fully deserving of a slow edit war: Is 24's digital clock ISO8601 compliant?

A little slow moving but it chugs right along. Now complete with a source on how maybe possibly perhaps it stems from American unfamiliarity with ISO8601 standards. Let's see how long it takes the clock to get an article of its own to better explore these issues. Bitnine 18:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Considering that most of the reverts/removals were due to WP:NOR policy, this is not entirely a lame editwar (or perhaps, at least not yet). --Stratadrake 00:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Celtic FC

A nomination - there is, as I type, a HUGE discussion bobbling along over, wait for it, if Celtic is a British Football Club, or a Northern European Football Club [6]. And living in a glass house, I was dragged into a pathetic debate about the meaning of the word "evidence" here. LeeG 00:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

A lot of discussion, indeed. But where's the lame reverts and edit-warring? --Stratadrake 01:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
A fair point - it has been restricted to the talk page, which is a Good Thing, but still a pointless debate. LeeG 02:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
And we don't have a page for the most pointless Talkpage debates ever. --Stratadrake 13:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Spelling or naming convertoversy?

E.g., my edits here. How should we classify edit wars regarding spelling variants over an article's name? I moved them under the "Spelling" section to be consistent with such examples as "Cultured dairy snack" (aka yogurt). --Stratadrake 19:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

How should we classify them? "Do these people really have nothing better to do?", if you ask me. Anyway, yes, 'Spelling' sounds right – Qxz 16:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The Game (game) (memory game) (intangible game) (forgetting game) (lost) (meme) (whatever)

I'm reasonably sure that the entire saga of this mess needs a write-up. I've made a start in userspaace to try and gather together all the problems and premises. Kinitawowi 14:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

How about this?

The Game (game)
A supposed game whose sole objective is to forget about "the game" (and subsequently, trying to remind other people about it). It has seen no less than seven AFD and two DRV discussions, and after a long controversy was deleted. Does this mean Wikipedia itself is "playing the Game"? It has led to its own fansite for promoting the game (with a stated purpose of being included on Wikipedia), and has still seen a few attempts to be re-created.

--Stratadrake 12:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wii Play

I'd like to say thank you to the person who added this here. Why? Because, sadly, it's the closest thing to progress we've had since the article was protected...nearly a month ago... Elsnerma 20:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Metal Gear Template

The history says it all. Dboyz-x.etown 22:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Korea vs the Korean peninsula

Okay, maybe not funny per se, but definitely a "lame edit war." See Asuka period, Kofun period, other early Japanese history related articles...

Can the Three Kingdoms of Korea be called "Korea" or should they be called "the Korean peninsula"? Or should they ungrammatically be called "Korean peninsula"? Can we use the term "Korea" to apply to a number of separate kingdoms ages before they were united into a modern nation-state? Does it even matter at all?

What makes this especially funny I think is that (a) these tiny minor edits completely dominate the edit history of these pages. As of right now, the last 40 or so edits spanning roughly the last 15 days have concerned very very little beyond the fight over this term. (b) while arguments over "China" vs "mainland East Asia" vs a number of other similar terms have come up, it seems that there's almost never arguments over "Japan" vs "Japanese archipelago" despite the fact that there was no singular united modern nation-state called "Japan" until 1868. I wouldn't be surprised if Spain, Great Britain / United Kingdom, Italy, and Germany, all relatively new concepts as united nation-states within the last 300 years or so, do not see the kind of petty pointless fighting that this Korean issue does. It's not even a pro-Korean, anti-Chinese or anti-Japanese nationalism thing; it's just lame.

Thanks for letting me vent. I hope no one's offended by my posting here. ^_^ LordAmeth 12:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, somebody else got here first! Does an edit war have to be accompanied by lots of heat and flaming? Or can it just be a kind of plodding stupidity persistence? The current count at Asuka period is 52 out of 55 latest edits were reverts (well, not strictly, as the spelling and language fixes have been copied from one 'version' to the other - these are 'nice' reverters!)   Anyway, peek at Talk:Asuka period for observations. Shenme 05:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure, I support this bid. In addition, you may find the following details to be of interest....
There's always 2 sides to a revert-war. But it appears that on one side of the issue, they've used sockpuppetry and who knows what other dirty tricks. See the following....
All the confirmed sockpuppets were perm-banned. But then, they now appear to be replaced by roving IP address users (using IPs belonging to "SBC Internet Services"). I've requested semi-protection on the following articles at WP:RFPP....
--Endroit 08:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Nomination: University of Wisconsin

Should University of Wisconsin be a redirect to University of Wisconsin system, or an article all about the Madison campus, ignoring all the others. Discussion occupies over half of 99kB long Talk:University of Wisconsin/Archive 3 and all 53 kB and counting of Talk:University of Wisconsin. Αργυριου (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Habbo Hotel invasion Controversy

Why is this gargantuan mess not here? Bsically a war between 4chan and a mod who didn't want mention of their (well documented) super invasion of Habbo Hotel.

Pool's closed due to lame. 58.178.47.36 03:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
{{sofixit}} Grandmasterka 01:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Esperanza - could someone write this up?

While I am a main participant in the dispute, I am not so blind with fury that I cannot see how hilariously fucking stupid it is is and how ironic that an organisation set up to promote community has proved so divisive. Check out the history. It's spilled over into whether WP:EA should go to Esperanza or Editor assistance, and onto about five people's talkpages. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Sonic games and Template:Sonic games (spin off)

An on-going, 11 month long edit war on whether Shadow the hedgehog is part of the main series or not. It’s definitely canon as it concludes a storyline of Sonic Heroes, but is the fact you don’t play as sonic and the gunplay enough to exclude it. The whole debate eventually led to the article getting protected for a month so that editors could discuss this all important issue. Eventually, inclusion critter was created expressly for the sole purposes of solving the issue. However, the debate still rages.

I’m probably the lamest editor within this entire dispute, but even so, I see how lame this argument is. El cid the hero 19:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

lede

While I don't want to suggest that the lede be fixed and never improved upon, I'm rather disappointed by how forced, rough, and just plain unfunny it is now. Remember this version? That was far better. --C S (Talk) 02:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Cow tipping

I'd like to nominate Talk:Cow tipping - they're actually arguing over whether or not the cow in the image on the article can be unsuspecting or not. (that's the jist of it - you need to go there to get the full scope of how lame this edit war actually is). Yankees76 19:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, amazing....yeah that definitely qualifies. It wouldn't even take much effort at summarizing the various comments to make it seem really funny and lame. --C S (Talk) 20:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Um... nobody seems to have noticed that Cow Tipping has been on the project page for a long time now. See Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Pictures and scroll down a bit. =Axlq 04:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Good, then I don't have to do any work. Hard to beleive that such a assinine edit war is still going on. Yankees76 16:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Surely that would be a bovine edit war. --LiamE 13:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who suggested changing that caption. It wasn't that it was unsuspecting, it was the caption sounded a little humorus. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 20:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

principality of sealand

The Principality of Sealand is not on the list, but [[Image:Sealand Fortress]], an image for the article is in this article with a small explanation eluding to what the edit war was about. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   08:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Hans_Filbinger#Regarding_only_the_translation_of_.22Was_damals_Recht_war.2C_kann_heute_nicht_Unrecht_sein.21.22

I'd like your feedback. Does this discussion qualify: Talk:Hans_Filbinger#Regarding_only_the_translation_of_.22Was_damals_Recht_war.2C_kann_heute_nicht_Unrecht_sein.21.22. It's not actually an edit war, but a veeery lengthy debate about whether or not the German words Recht and Unrecht can be accurately translated with lawful-unlawful or whether they are so ambigous that two translations are needed within the main text. By now, I estimate the discussion is longer than the main article. (Uh, and it was started and kept alive by myself). Blur4760 22:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Is Halo 3 a video game or a Nine Inch Nails song?

Talk:Halo 3#Nine Inch Nails - You decide! --Yeti Hunter 07:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Year 2038 problem

As I've been involved in it, I don't want to write the paragraph myself, but a single sentence in the Y2.038k article has probably been the source of half of the non-vandalism-related edits since the article's creation. Personally, I find it simultaneously hilarious and encўclopædïç, but others insist on regularly removing it. To get an idea of just how big an issue this is, check out the length of the sentence itself compared to the comments that we've been forced to surround it with to reduce the number of out-of-hand removals. Examples: [7] [8] [9] [10] Jouster  (whisper) 09:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Added. Confusing Manifestation 23:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Qian Zhijun

The whole Qian Zhijun deletion wars thing needs to be dealt with, as it was an unusually lame wheel war. I'm not up to it, however. Any volunteers? Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 07:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

La Toya Jackson

Surely we need to document thisthis! Check out these gems:

Iamunknown, You seem to think that all of these admins are trying to help Wikipedia. it isn't. They're out to team up with eachother and terrorize the "peasant" users to the point where we will no longer contribute. And these admins have succeeded in their goals. This is why I want my account deleted.

I did read those policies, and followed the EXACT PROCEDURES to ensure that any removal of Image:LaToyaJackson.jpg was unjustifiable. Of course, these terrible admins found their ways around it pretty quick. They shove their own personal beliefs onto Wikipedia instead of remaining neutral as they should. Because THEY don't like La Toya Jackson, they have to make her article boring by removing all pictures. That's TYPICAL of most admins!

Crosslinked at WP:AGENDA. Jouster  (whisper) 01:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't that the guy who wanted a picture of some sort of abstract ceramic thing very vaguely resembling a human face (and not at all resembling La Toya Jackson) thrown into the infobox? --tjstrf talk 01:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Updated link. Yep. Jouster  (whisper) 05:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Is This One Lame Enough?

sadly, i found myself involved in a lame edit war recently, over in Talk:Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism#W.Y.Evans Wentz and the attached article, about whether the author should be cited as "Wentz, W.Y. Evans" or "Evans Wentz, W.Y." (or even "Evans-Wentz, W.Y."). most amusing of all is that the cite given by the other party actually supports all three forms. Whateley23 08:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)