Wikipedia talk:Lamest edit wars

Lame Wars - Ching Hai

Any move war over the difference between a primary title and a redirect. Most recently it has had to do with Ching Hai, whose disciples call Supreme Master Ching Hai. The redirect has been there for ten years, but some of her disciples apparently want to insist that the form with the honorific be primary. They can find her anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

CD

The article name here should match the actual article name, right? Benjamin (talk) 09:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily. We don't need to update this page each time a disputed page is moved. Some of them like Compact Disk/Compact disk are listed here because of conflicts causing multiple moves.[1][2] PrimeHunter (talk) 12:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Not every time, but once the war subsides. Benjamin (talk) 12:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

No. That's the whole point of this page and why I undid your edit. This essay is a record of how things were (and got out of hand) and not of how things are. Cheers, Yintan  20:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2017

Add a semi-protection template to the top of the page so readers will know that it's semi-protected without having to click "View Source." 98.197.198.46 (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, if you have to click "View Source" instead of edit, that's a pretty good tipoff, but done. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but even if unregistered and non-auto-confirmed realize that the document is semi-protected (which isn't a certainty, concerning that many of them are new to Wikipedia), they'd still have to click "View Source" in order to figure out which level of protection there is, if/when said protection will expire, etc…. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.198.46 (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Transclusion of child pages

The main reason that I transcluded the pages was so there wouldn't be a content fork, where information would be added to the parent page or the appropriate child page—but not both. There are also other benefits, like improved ability to navigate through the editor. What do you think? The N^th User I like to use parser functions. Care to differ or discuss? 18:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I was writing a post here when you saved. Background: In October 2007 an editor moved the sections to subpages like Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/Ethnic feuds and transcluded them in Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. It was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Lamest edit wars/Archive 3#"Cleanup" and quickly reverted. The subpages were abandoned but unfortunately not redirected or deleted. Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/Ethnic feuds shows no transclusions but the subpages have a few incoming links and show up in searches. Since 2007 they have been sporadically edited by users who probably thought they were in real use.

This week The Nth User made a lot of synchronization between the subpages and Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars, and then changed the latter to transclude the 17 subpages at Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars like in 2007. It looks like a big effort but I wish it had been suggested here first. I have reverted it for now. I strongly agree with The Nth User that we should not have different versions at Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars and the subpages, or synchronize them manually, but I think a better solution is to redirect the subpages to their sections, e.g. redirecting Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/Ethnic feuds to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Ethnic and national feuds. The subpages could also be deleted but it would break some incoming links. We normally only use transclusion for a reason like transluding the same page in multiple places, or having dedicated discussions which can be placed in categories and watched by interested users. Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars has 621 page watchers. I guess few of them are only interested in watching a part of it while the rest would not bother adding 17 subpages to their watchlists. The page is getting large but I disagree that transcluded subpages give better navigation. People can just use the TOC and make section edits. With transclusions it confuses some users that they click an edit link on one page and end up on another page. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Another problem with deleting the child pages is that they serve as main articles because some of the parent page's sections are unwieldily long. Actually, I originally wanted to transclude sections of the parent page into the child page, but sandbox tests showed me that I could only transclude entire pages, not individual sections, as templates. The N^th User I like to use parser functions. Care to differ or discuss? 21:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the subpages are meant to serve as anything since a few hours 9 October 2007‎ when they were created, transcluded, and untranscluded. They may just have been ignored while the real Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars was trimmed, or somebody stumbled by one of the subpages and added something. I don't think we should list too many lame edit wars to show on the main page. You may be interested in Help:Labeled section transclusion. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I see no reason why perfectly lame edit wars could be omitted. If the parent page gets too long, we have a solution: The child pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Nth User (talk • contribs) 21:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Can we please start a meta-editwar about WP:LAME? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Would a meta-editwar be an editwar on a meta page or a move-editwar about whether or not the page should be in the metaspace? Either way, I'm pretty sure that Wikipedia policy forbids it, and it definitely discourages it. The N^th User Care to differ or discuss? 22:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Yup this is definitely a joke. "Meta-edit war" refers to the fact that (presumably lame) edit wars have happened on this very page: see Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Meta-lameness. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

(reply to The Nth User's post at 21:09, 5 January 2018) You can. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay; I'll probably change it, but I'm going to wait and see whether or not anyone else will comment here in the next few hours or so. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 03:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

No one has raised any objections, so I'll start. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 20:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

T Rex edit war

Anyone know when the T Rex self edit war was? It sounds funny and I'd love to see a link to the edits in question. Macoroni (talk) 12:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I found it here Special:Contributions/50.195.51.9 on November 26, 2012. Funnily enough, one of those users from that IP address added it themselves to this page. Turns out it was on the talk page, not the T Rex article itself. Macoroni (talk) 12:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

God I love this page

In all seriousness we can never let something like this be merged, removed or die, because it serves as a mirror to those who organize edit-Agincourts over petty squabbles. Double Plus Ungood (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I like it too, but it seems kind of old? Like, a MAJORITY of all content is from 2009/2010 edit wars, (not that this is bad in itself, and I don't think they should be removed or anything,) but has nothing notable happened in the last 7 years? 65.129.144.106 (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)