Wikipedia talk:Lamest edit wars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Department of Fun (Rated Project-class, Bottom-importance)
WikiProject icon This page is supported by the Department of Fun WikiProject, which aims to provide Wikipedians with fun so that they stay on Wikipedia and keep on improving articles. If you have any ideas, do not hesitate to post them to the discussion page or access our home page to join the Department of Fun.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the quality scale.
 Bottom  This page has been rated as Bottom-importance on the importance scale.
This page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Ableist slur in the page name[edit]

The word 'Lamest' should be something that's not a slur, i nominate Silliest. [1] (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

In this case, it's supposed to be a slur. If we call it "Silliest" or anything else of that nature, it would encourage people to engage in edit wars just so they could be remembered as Silly, but much less want to be Lame. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 00:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
The point is that the term is to the disability community similar in offensiveness as the N-word to the African American community or "Redskins" to the Native American community. It's not just a slur against people who belong on this page, it's a slur against people with disabilities. Use of that term for this page is not only offensive but may discourage people with disabilities from taking part in using, editing, or verifying this page. Certainly the community can come up with a term that is not an offensive term for a group of people who came that way by birth or happenstance. "Most unbelievable edit wars" or "Most uncouth edit wars" or "Most awkward edit wars" or "Most obnoxious edit wars" would be non-offensive ways of describing this concept, would be more in keeping with a world view, and would be more accessible to people who do not speak English as a first language, while keeping presence on this page undesirable. If you still want a slang term, "Most uncool edit wars" and "Edit war buzz kills" or "Most half-assed edit wars" are slang without slurring a group of people who have nothing to do with those edit wars. Thisisnotatest (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
the word you are thinking of is "retarded". thankfully the article is not called "Most retarded edit wars" (talk) 07:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
And "uncouth" is classist, "awkward" is similarly ableist... maybe just drop the silly, lame oversensitive nonsense. (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Silly is offensive to the holy, happy people. I protest. It should be self-offensive to all of us. What about: Full-assed, lamest, blindest, dumbest, niggardliest, moronicest, idioticest, silliest, disablingest wars? then? Zezen (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I propose most interesting edits wars or perhaps most notable edit wars (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the above suggestions are intended seriously, but "most interesting" is pretty close to the opposite of the idea we want to encapsulate: the title is meant to have negative connotations. One of Thisisnotatest's suggestions would fit much better, or something else along similar lines like "Most pathetic edit wars". Contains Mild Peril (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

They're not just notable, but notable because of how particularly useless they are. I'm not sure any of the other suggestions really mean the same. Yes, it could be a slur, but many words have many different meanings, and that's not the way it's used in this context. I might suggest stupid, but that could be a slur too if only you go back in time a little. Benjamin (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that the use of the term "pathetic" could be more appropriate. (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


This is really turning into a lame,uncouth,awkward,full-assed, blind, dumb, niggardly, moronic, idiotic, silly, disabling,interesting,notable,useless,pathetic, (GASP!!!) edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charizardmewtwo (talkcontribs) 14:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
In the U.K. (all rise) the term Lame is not used much. We use the term Sad in exactly the same sense. And as Wikipedia was invented in the U.K (see compelling argument below) I suggest Saddest edit wars. Irondome (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with "Most ridiculous". But complaining about the word "lame" is kind of... well, dare I say "lame"? There are plenty of words with more than one meaning. You might as well consider blind test to be a dig at those with less than perfect eye sight. Yintan  10:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


This reptile is in it's own order, the Rhynchocephalia. It's not a lizard or an amniote. Charizardmewtwo (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

New rule/policy idea[edit]

If there is a conflict between British vs. American spelling, the British spelling should be canon, since Wikipedia was invented in Great Britain. I hope this will prevent further stupid edit wars. Charizardmewtwo (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


Does he qualify for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons? Charizardmewtwo (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:BDP says that WP:BLP "does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources". Jesus died, and that's the gospel truth. I submit that resurrection or reincarnation of a deceased person does not bring WP:BLP back into play.
Otherwise, people like the ancient Egyptian scribe Cleophas would also need a BLP tag. Narky Blert (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
The well-documented 1960s Liverpool F.C. graffito "Jesus Saves" - "But St John scores from the rebound" supplies no reason whatsoever for including Jesus in Category:Association football goalkeepers. Narky Blert (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
But Jesus is a living person, because he resurrected. The Bible is a reliable source, and it tells us that Jesus is a living person. If he is alive today, he is not dead, because nobody can be half alive half dead, except for Schrodinger's cat, but Schrodinger's cat is just a theory, and like evolution, it has been proven wrong by the Bible. And if you want to question me, look at the 1st amendment in the freedom of religion. It's a free country, right?!?!?!?!?!?! And if it's a free country, we have the right to be innocent until proven guilty! (sigh) Charizardmewtwo (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
This is so easy to solve. No matter if you consider him dead or alive, Jesus is not a person. So no Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Ha! Yintan  10:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hummus is generally a meal, not a snack[edit]

The article currently calls hummus a snack. In the West, hummus is eaten as a snack condiment, but in the Middle East hummus is eaten as a meal on all sides of the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


Not sure whether this belongs in the fan section or the separate fan page. Sourcing is impressive: 'Washington Post' published a summary on this edit war over whether Garfield the cat is male or gender neutral--both sides of the warring factions cited sources of their own.[1] Leaving the decision to others on how to categorize (perhaps an incipient "Edit wars so lame they made real world news")? Skrydstrup (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)