Talk:List of jesters

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 October 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

Circus Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Circus. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.CircusWikipedia:WikiProject CircusTemplate:WikiProject CircusCircus articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Um, what the hell is jester girl a tail in Bust a Move 3 she little girl?

I think the description of the one bubble bobble should actually She is a little jester girl with a tail in Bust a Move 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:2500:F000:447:57B0:AC18:351E (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accurate Description of Jesters

As there is no recognised independent assessment of the skill of fire breathing and fire eating I have removed the 'master' from the entry of The Fool Monty. Robynthehode (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion

I have removed the {{prod}} tag which proposed that this article be deleted, because I think that this article has merit and so should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here as notification. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article as that process is only to be used when there is no opposition. Warden (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Present-day jesters

@Robynthehode: To avoid self-promotion and trivial examples, I propose that jesters in the "live entertainment" section be restricted to notable ones (those having their own Wikipedia article). 73.223.96.73 (talk) 07:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While the premise to limit the list because of self promotion is worthwhile. The fact the two of the examples have a Wikipedia articles does not confer notability. It is also likely (or at least a matter of concern) that those articles have been written by the people they feature (having done some research into the editing of these articles already) so therefore this is self promotion anyway. I would suggest that if significant mention of those in the list can be found on the websites of events they purport to regularly perform at then this confers a level of notability. Some might say that the level of evidence of notability should be stronger than this but if so then the list of jesters in video games should be similarly limited (as just one example within this list article) Robynthehode (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Notability (people) for a definition of what it means for a person to be "notable" on Wikipedia. This can then be used per WP:LISTPEOPLE to determine who belongs on the list. A person belongs on the list if (a) they are a "notable" person per WP:BLPNOTE, and (b) sources indicate that they are in fact a jester.

It seems to me the simplest way to apply this criterion is by requiring that a person added to the list have their own article. If someone believes a jester is notable and belongs on the list, he or she can create an article about that jester with appropriate references. Conversely, if someone believes a jester is not notable, he or she can propose that the article about that person be deleted. 73.223.96.73 (talk) 02:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About including Robo Fizz in the List of jesters article

The below discussion is from my talk page. As it may be of interest to other editors I have copied here and ask all contributors (especially @Raggens: and @DeeJaye6: to post here and not at my talk page in future discussions. Thanks. Robynthehode (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So I kinda noticed my contribution was removed because a show performer isn't the same as a jester, is that correct? Well, what about the part of Episode 2 where Blitzo explicitly refers to Robo Fizz as a knockoff of the popular jester? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggens (talk • contribs) 21:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raggens You would need a reliable source that specifically states they are a jester. To be honest this sort of content is quote trivial. Also please take queries and discussions to the article talk page so other editors can read them and comment if they want to. Also remember to sign your posts with 4 tildes ~ . Robynthehode (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raggens This guy has a strong opinion on what is or is not "trivial," and is merciless with his edits. He then punts to the "Talk" page for the page where he deleted your good-faith edit. What I don't understand is why you, Robyn, do not follow your own advice and simply post to the talk page about your feelings on something being "trivial" or not, and let the community decide, instead of making that decision unilaterally, and then putting the onus on the writer to get the community together. DeeJaye6 (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DeeJaye6 The reason for my edit is based in Wikipedia protocol. See WP:BRD. Allowing edits to remain unchallenged would result in Wikipedia being flooded with potentially trivial, incorrect, or otherwise not up to standard edits. The onus is on the editor making the contribution to justify the edit not for me or other editors to begin a discussion on the quality or otherwise of any specific edit. Any editor can be wrong in their revert and this is why I (following Wikipedia protocol) ask the editor to go to the talk page. Again it is not my responsibility to begin a discussion on the talk page but that of the editor whose edit is reverted. There may be good reasons that the edit should be retained which is not being denied just that following the 'Bold, Revert, Discuss' cycle Raggens should be making their argument for inclusion of their edit. Robynthehode (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, Robyn. Here's my source as to why Robo Fizz (or Fizzarolli) should be added to the list of jesters. Helluva Boss. Season 1, Episode 2. Quoted by Blitzo. At 11:26. ""Bitch, I make more money killing people than you do being a cheap-ass, robo-ripoff of an overrated, sellout **JESTER**."

I have good, solid evidence for my contribution. So quit removing it when there's proof to support what I have to offer. Raggens (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, take DeeJay6's advice and post your feelings to the "Talk" page and thoroughly explain why you have decided to remove my contribution without my permission, even though I have proof as to why I decided to include Robo Fizz in the "List of Jesters" Raggens (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raggens Just because a character calls another character a 'jester' doesn't mean they are a jester. Someone can be called a 'clown' but they are not a clown in the sense of a circus performer. You also need to understand Wikipedia protocols and what reliable sources are and what is quality evidence. Read WP:RS and WP:OR. You have also responded here without reading WP:BRD. I can revert any contribution of any editor as I see fit as long as I give a reason in the edit summary and am not edit warring or being disruptive (as defined by Wikipedia protocols). I don't have to have your permission to revert your edit. Nor do I have to give an extended reason as to my revert. It is up to you - the burden of proof is yours - to make the case as to why the edit should be retained. You have not done that. You are also misunderstanding the process of editing Wikipedia. Perhaps you should start by reading WP:5P and the other links I have given. To be honest this disscussion should be taking place on the article talk page so other editors can contribute so I have copied over there. Please respond at the article talk page from now on. It is also helpful when you respond to another editors post to indent your reply by using one more colon than the previous response. Robynthehode (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

tyler hilton dont sound like no serb i ever heard of

i think someones a foolin Wikipedia Wonderful 698-D (talk) 08:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]