Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-10-28/Humour

Humour

After the apocalypse, when zombies and aliens take over the Earth in a thousand years and dig up Wikipedia's servers but can only find talk pages without their accompanying articles, what will they think??

From the talk page of Orange (not the color)

Editor's note: Orange (fruit) now has a series of wholesome, appealing images thanks to the industriousness of Wikipedia volunteers and a not-insignificant contribution from the Florida Orange Growers Association. The image seen here is for historical context only, and not meant to disparage Florida oranges in any way, nor the fruit nor any tree product of any sub-national entity.

Unflattering Picture of a Sectioned Orange

Anti-orange propaganda

An apple cabal meeting

I think this picture is unflattering if not disgusting. Who would want to eat an orange after seeing that picture? I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it were inserted by somebody in the apple industry (known to be unscrupulous) or somebody with an extreme dislike of oranges. A picture that unflattering does not occur by mistake and I'm quite certain there is an agenda behind it. I know that this page is meant to be informative and not pro-orange, but that picture is treading into the dangerous territory of being anti-orange. I'm not saying that we should use the most flattering picture of a sectioned orange available on the 'net, but surely a compromise can be reached. I nominate that it be removed or changed in favor of a more neutral picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.60.98 (talk • contribs)

Yes this is clearly a far-malus conspiracy to drive down orange sales among the compulsive wikipedia browsing population. Please take whatever action you feel is necessary to restore the vital balance of presentation so that the prolitariate may once again rejuice. - JustinWick 19:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the picture is acceptable, and I think it is difficult for a picture to be neutral. Note that the same IP address also believes that oranges do not grow on trees WLU 19:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think you truely grasp the extent to which apple fans will go to sabotage their competition. I hereby declare that all images of oranges on Wikipedia should be examined for NPOVness. 216.164.60.98, why don't you get on this ASAP? - JustinWick 21:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WLU - That is disingenuous and a complete misrepresentation of anything I've ever posted. Of course oranges grow on trees. I have a lot of knowledge of and experience with oranges. I simply made the point that there are those who remain unconvinced - and those people do exist. If you don't think that's worth noting, then fine, I can live with that. But that's not really what we're talking about right now. Anyhow, if I can find a more flattering picture do you really mind if I change it? JustinWick sees exactly what I am talking about (lol @ rejuice!). I am not about to accuse you of being the person who posted the offending picture or of being involved in the apple industry, but my antenna is up. Cheers!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 04:09, January 24, 2007 216.164.60.98 (talk • contribs).

WLU, are you some kind of apple sympathizer? Why do you defend a picture that is clearly not in the best interests of our daily nutritional needs. The anon might not go so far as to accuse you of conspiracy, but it's clear to me that you are at the very least an apple sympathizer. Anon, can you take a better picture yourself? You seem to have a deep knowledge of oranges, and you at least live harmoniously with them in your life. WLU, go back to your cider press or whatever and let us fix this egregious crime against one of nature's most beautious botanical bounties. - JustinWick 22:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the power to you if you can find a better picture of an orange. The rest of your contributions are POV, unsourced and use weasel words. WLU

So, let me understand this right. The Signpost has an article about a picture of an orange. Ya know after going through a number of goat ropes while attempting to edit here; I personally believe this is a stunning picture and deserves all of the attention in gets.WHY? Because somewhere, in some place, is some poor bastard being transformed into an emotional tampon over a picture of a damned sectioned orange...BRAVOCoal town guy (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the talk page of Zirconia

Move for deletion?

Photograph of either a diamond or cubic zirconia; checking the filename is cheating

Is this the zirconia? Or...

...is this the zirconia?

My wife found out that her ring was cubic zirconia. I told her that that meant it was extra rare and valuable. I propose we delete this article, or I am in some serious shit. She is a big wikipedia user and she might see this page, but I don't want to vandalize... Please :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreo man (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I'm afraid you're doomed. Tuck your head down and kiss the boys goodbye, is all the advice I can offer! --Grey Knight ⊖ 04:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have a special right to request an article's deletion just because you screwed up. But you have to say, cubic zirconia is shiny, and we all know people can't resist shiny objects. :D The First Doll 07:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're screwed. But I do agree that cubic zirconium is shiny. --science4sail ^talkcon 02:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hahaha your dead when your wife finds this page--Blue-Eyes Gold Dragon 08:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or 'Talk page highlights'... 203.11.71.124 (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the talk page of George Washington (inventor)

Pic

An approximation of Mr. Washington's appearance based on available historical information

In lieu of contemporary photographs or paintings, here is an artist's rendition of Washington, with coffee. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, if you've read the article recently, he should really have a monkey sitting on his shoulder :)--Pharos 15:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

♥♥♥ ShadowHalo 20:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the talk page for notability guidelines for septuagenarian female plumbers with red hair and freckles

Scope of species included

The plumber just showed up and will charge $275 just for walking through your front door.

It is not clear if this proposal is meant to apply to only humans (homo sapien), or also to beavers (castor canadensis, castor fiber), particularly the American beaver, which also has red fur (and builds water control systems). Peet Ern (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very few beavers are going to reach septuagenarian status, and if they do, then that in and of itself is notable. --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find it is more than you might realise. I assume we are counting species years, for example, human years versus dog years versus beaver years. Peet Ern (talk) 02:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. But does this mean expanding this page or adding another more specific guideline re Beavers who plumb in old age? --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. If the old age plumbing beaver is also a horse jockey who formed a pop group and recorded one song then they should have their own guideline. Otherwise they should be included in the generic WP:NF70+PB guideline. Peet Ern (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A pressing question is also whether the hair color of the beaver is different from that of the plumber.--Father Goose (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Careful! We're talking plumbing not anatomy. --Kevin Murray (talk) 05:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the Reference desk's science archives

Spontaneous Hummingbird Combustion

[[File:|center|250px|alt=Photograph of a reconstructed representation of the aftermath of human spontaneous combustion]]

Is this the hummingbird? Or...

Photograph of a hummingbird feeding from a flower

...is this the hummingbird seconds before ignition?

I have heard it claimed that if a human's metabolic rate was somehow increased to match that of a hummingbird, the human would burst into flames. Is this true, and if so, how was it calculated? And for that matter, what prevents hummingbirds from spontaneously combusting if their metabolism is as high as this claim implies? 75.4.22.29 (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you've stated is a common misconception. Hummingbirds are bursting into flame all the time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[impressive amount of people-taking-it-seriously discussion removed]

What do you mean? African or European Hummingbirds? It's a question of weight ratios. really all it means is that we'd have enough muscles and energy to flap hard enough to fly and use the air as coolant. Probably be very fast swimmers too. --DHeyward (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward, the issue is that the hummingbirds don't combust when they carry a coconut together on a line. Nyttend (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We had a cold snap the other night. The only birds that weren't flash-freezing in mid-flight were the local hummingbirds. New York One news was advising people who found sparrows and other songbirds frozen in mid-air to scoop them up with a fishing net, and microwave them on low for five minutes or so, depending on the make and wattage. μηδείς (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"And as I fricaseed him, he gave out a yell: 'Oy! Willow! Titwillow! Willow!'" --Allan Sherman[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above talk page discussions have been slightly refactored for brevity, clarity, and accessibility. The solutions to last issue's crossword puzzle can be found here. Do you want to contribute to "Humour" or write a story or even just an "in brief" item? Edit next month's edition in the Newsroom or leave a tip on the suggestions page.

← Previous "Humour"

Next "Humour" →

In this issue

28 October 2018 (all comments)

Humour

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

:D Wut a nice way to start my day :D Lourdes 16:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of these have been at Wikipedia:Talk page highlights for a while (the most recent one having been added in 2015). Double sharp (talk) 03:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes they have! It seems like only a few editors dig deep enough to find these tidbits. Lucky for me I only had to do some pasting with attribution. Talk page discussions on Wikipedia are also in the public domain, people. Barbara ✐ ✉ 09:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the chuckles :-). Just to clarify, talk page discussions aren’t in the public domain in the legal sense. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know if the Apple Cabal ever meets with the Lumber Cartel... AnonMoos (talk) 08:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job. Greatly appreciated, and just wow! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulstev (talk • contribs) 22:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Get the latest headlines on your user page – just add {{Signpost-subscription}}.

Home

About