This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture 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.
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.
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
The 'eternal flamewar' is easily solved by edit protection and/or liberally handed out blocks. If one writes a statement using cnn.com as a reference, then one puts cnn.com as a reference. If one finds evidence supporting a statement on cnn.com, then one adds cnn.com as a reference. Changes of those references to another site who is also supporting the material is bad practice. Edit warring over that is even worse practice. All those are against our policies. Adding a second reference that is stating practically, essentially or completely the same is simply superfluous (some things have been covered by every major and minor news outlet in the world, we do not put references to all of those, just the ones that .. were used to write the information). In short: I don't see the need to change the references, what needs to change here is the behaviour of some of the editors active on these pages. --Dirk BeetstraTC 06:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. Besides, neither site is a reliable source, and the fork is not notable. Furthermore, I see no flamewar whatsoever, aside from forkers occasionally popping in and saying we ought to change things--and that is a one-sided flamewar, if at all. -– Cathfolant(talk) 01:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
DungeonSiegeAddict...this is unnecessary. The article isn't here to make the editors from the wikia site or the .co site happy. The article is here to inform the general reader about uncyclopedia rendered through wikipedia policy. The sources that we choose to cite is based on due weight and not on spoon/fork squabbling.
Cathfolant, in April your comments were critical of the spoon. Now you use the same hostile language about the fork. Allegiances should be dropped when editing content on wikipedia and leaving snarky comments here does nothing to help improve the wikipedia article. --Shabidoo | Talk 01:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey, I'm basically just repeating what Spike has already said a jillion times; didn't see you object to him saying it. I only said it to point out why there wasn't a flamewar, not in the interest of my 'allegiances'. Separately, the same goes for you. -– Cathfolant(talk) 06:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
No. SPIKE never claimed that the fork was not notable, a comment like that reeks of COI. SPIKE's edits and comments on wikipedia regarding uncyclopedia have been totally neutral, constructive and has followed wikipedia policy. --Shabidoo | Talk 19:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
In fact, I was open to that claim. If one acquires the same merchandise as Joe's Tavern and invites all its customers to one's basement instead, it might lack notability, depending on who takes up the offer, and certainly is not more notable than the original. The recent Greggs controversy happened at the original site, because Google links to the original site, and it does so not just because of our corporate connection but because we acted to eliminate the apparent libel, while the Fork would jive about its editors' rights. However, I agreed that this article should be neutral. (Newbie Thememeer has broken this, and I have asked him to undo his edit.) Spike-from-NH (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC) PS--Thememeer did not, nor did he do anything else on the website in the 5 days, so I have undone him. Spike-from-NH (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)