![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Between these on 1979 Atlantic hurricane season there were a total of six reversions by the two editors over the simple question of whether Hurricane Bob of 1979 or Hurricane George of 1950 was the first hurricane with a male name.-- Nilfanion ( talk) 18:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Stockholm is the largest city in Scandinavia. Everyone knows that! Er... [1] no, it isn't! Copenhagen is bigger No, Stockholm is: [2]. And back and forth we go, several times, with it coming to rest (for now) at this diff [3]. Meanwhile the talk page lays out in excruciating detail the many ways in which you can measure bigness... all of which it turns out numerically Stockholm is biggest by. But that matters not, does it? Stockholm cheated by including more land area than is "fair". Who cares, really? ++ Lar: t/ c 14:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
++ Lar: t/ c 14:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
It'd be fucking awesome if this talk page made the list. Just a thought... Ah well...to wish impossible things... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Durandal1717 ( talk • contribs) .
I think this is a candidate for lamest edit war ever. First off, its an article about a freaking game on The Price Is Right (lame). It's not even one of the good ones, all the contestant has to do is decide whether or not to switch the prices or not (lame). And the edit war is about what is probably the least consequential of all the inconsequential pieces of info in the article: whether you can win by doing nothing or not (lame). And its not even about whether that piece of info is true or not, its about grammar (lame). And its not even about whether the sentence is technically grammatically wrong or not, just whether a word in it is redundant (lame). And most of the edit war revolved around the meaning of the word "can" (lame). Combine my being a dick with his being wrong and it is like a perfect storm of lameness. Recury 19:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
This was on WP:AN/I, and has been moved here for lack of a better target. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 07:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Anyone else think the recent ruckus at WP:WL qualifies as lameness? 68.39.174.238 23:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The American Heritage Dictionary definition of "lame" in this context is "Weak and ineffectual; unsatisfactory". If that's not bias, I don't know what is. So if NPOV is non-negotiable, I think the article has to be retitled. Ribonucleic 22:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
How nerdy can you get?
I think this section should be removed. It serves only to mock those of our critics who have had disputes regarding their own articles, and is likely to simply inflame the situation further. — Werdna talk criticism 09:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I've created this template for talk pages. Feel free to use it, but be wary of using it on talk pages of fanboy type TV shows and Guinea Pigs. Those users tend to take their edit wars very seriously. -- Malber ( talk • contribs) 12:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
If anyone is willing to take up the torch, here is the original version of the template:
It's not the greatest, so feel free to improve it if you like. -- Malber ( talk • contribs) 17:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
There was a vandal incident at the Atlantic Records page where a lot of users were blanking the page and putting in YOU SUCK or just plain adding it in that had to result in it getting protected. Would this constitute as an edit war, and would it be lame? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starhood` ( talk • contribs)
I've been gone for a year, but when tonight I clicked onto Wikipedia's Lamest Edit Wars for no particular reason, and started howling over just the descriptions alone, I realized how much I've missed this place. So I'm coming back, but I will try to behave. Bless you all. Mothperson cocoon 00:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I've just enjoyed the best laugh the Wikipedia Signpost ever gave me. This comes from the Finnish Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-10-23/Interwiki report. In the past, some of the more memorable controversies have included: a lengthy discussion on the correct spelling of pizza ( fi:pizza) in Finnish (which, as it turned out, is "pizza" instead of "pitsa")... Think it's worth creating an international section? Durova 18:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
You know, it would be so much more useful if people would link to actual diffs of the lameness, rather than just the article. It's pretty much impossible to find the lameness if it happened more than a few days ago, since people don't tend to record the dates it happened either. Stevage 02:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
195.84.40.9 ( talk · contribs) removed the history/page talk links that I added without explanation. I am restoring them. Han-Kwang 13:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, people--call it what you want, but in the end, that's really nobody's business but the Turks, okay? nmw 23:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
This is surely the greatest page on all of Wikipedia...hours of hilarious reading here!! Love it!! Burtonpe 15:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
A micronation, but not just any micronation: the name says it all (or should that be Queendom?) Not that there's anything wrong with micronations per se, or with LGBT issues per se, but does a completely uninhabited archipelago off the coast of Australia really merit 68kb of talk page debate? They haven't even issued postage stamps. Durova 01:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I suggest this page would be more instructive if it was arrainged based on why the participants warred, EG. "Being absolutely sure they were right", "Obsessive accuracy" (For things like the diameter of the Death Star, etc), "Overzealous application of policy", etc. This would probably make it more instructive of why these things happen and what the warning signs are. Any suggestions (Other then {{ sofixit}})? 68.39.174.238 06:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
A suggestion: Add the Harry Potter Info Box Colors edit war to the list. Also see here. Olin See also 20:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I just boldly added Tiger to the Wording section (although the war eventually expanded to cover more than just the wording). I stumbled across this one several weeks ago while doing disambiguation cleanup, and was truly stunned at the scope and silliness of the debate, but didn't know there was a place where it could be properly honored till just now. Having looked at some of the other examples here, I truly think the Tiger war deserves its place on this page, but if I've overstepped any boundaries, please feel free to revert. cheers, Xtifr tälk 12:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
It's been a few months, but it was a pretty lame edit war that really did end with pie. Boldly added it, as edit war was lamely severe enough to have its own talk page following an archival. -- Pipian 18:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I added WWE Armageddon. it could use a little tweaking though... -- Scorpion0422 02:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Tch, that is indeed a lame edit war. Especially when everyone knows the correct term is can opener. Confusing Manifestation 13:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
As a quick poll of talk page users:
There (currently) exists an entry on the GNAA deletion wars. While this does not qualify as an edit war per se, I'd say, given the extraordinary lameness and vitriol involved, that it qualifies for this page.
So, given that I expect disagreement from at least one contributor, I'll poll people: Should the GNAA deletion nomination wars be included or removed from this page? Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 04:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
A user added the recent vandalism of Marshmallow to the "Miscellaneous" section of this page. I don't think it counts as an edit-war, as it was really repeated vandalism and reverts, not a content dispute. I don't want to remove it myself, however, as it may be a conflict of interest as I was one of the editors who helped to revert the hours on end of vandalism.
Hopefully, a neutral party and decide if this is an edit war or just vandalism: An anonymous user removed the section on marshmallow-related deaths twice, which were reverted because some editors wanted the removal discussed on the talk page first. The anonymous editor then decided to make a point by emphasizing the risk (to the point of hyperbole) and adding it to the introductory paragraph, claiming that we'd "convinced" him of the awful danger and if we didn't want that section removed (nevermind that we just wanted discussion first), we should strongly emphasize it.
Keeping the entry here as-is seems to imply that the vandal was making good faith edits that other users disagreed with, when there were in reality only two good faith edits before it became vandalism. So even if it's kept, the description should be made more accurate. Something like "Should removing a section be discussed on the talk page first, or just done and then supported by hours of WP:POINT vandalism if others disagree?" -- Icarus ( Hi!) 18:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Kinda agreed, I looked it up when wondering how exactly to describe it, but from what little I saw it seemed more of an off-kilter-yet-remotely-reasonable content dispute rather than a truly pointless one, as this page is intended for. Removing it for now. -- Stratadrake 06:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Why are there no page history links to some of these edit wars? I would love to read some of them. Currently to read these edit wars, I would have to go through months, if not years of edits to find the lame edit war. Best wishes, Travb ( talk) 21:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
New and old contributors: Help other wikipedians enjoy the lame edit war even more
Editors who added or will add a new lame edit war:
Since you are the most familar with your addition to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars, PLEASE take the time to include two or three edit history links about the lame edit war you added to this page.
These two or three edit history links will provide even more hours of laughter for other wikipedians. Thank you. Travb ( talk) 11:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we need more discussion on this.
If there is a general concern that history links point towards warring editors in too harsh a fashion, let's not include them — but in that case, we should also remove the links to the articles themselves, as they are not entertaining. How about either not including any links at all, or using links to history or talk pages (and, optionally, articles)?
Wikipeditor 21:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
This page is getting rather long; we should probably prune some of the less interesting entries. Some aren't even lame, or not edit wars, just pointers to some old dispute. >Radiant< 12:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding this actually very short edit war, I only backed off because it wasn't worth an endless fight.
However, to this day, I know my position on that matter is factually correct; weblogs are indeed web applications. Sometimes, one cannot win a battle against someone who thinks they own a term (despite the fact that the term 'weblog' evolved since its creation). Especially one who never proved they were who they said they were. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 01:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Obviously this article is mostly for humor, but sometimes more is at stake than meets the eye. A battle over a simple exclamation mark -- a seeming trifle -- in this case was actually a battle over Wikipedia's NPOV stance. A user thought he could end a sentence with a '!' because the sentence was about something 'really bizarre'.
Sometimes a fine point of detail has enormous ramifications that are not immediately visible. 208.103.180.57 16:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I ran across them the other day, eight variations on a single message + redirect categorization. I could imagine it now:
But I don't think there have been any real "wars" over these templates. -- Stratadrake 02:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
This would probably be more fun and a lot more helpful if we added in when and where these edit wars took place, possibly using the edit history as a reference. I'm almost questioning the validity of some solely because I can't find where they happened. -- Wizardman 14:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm a guilty party here I guess, but I'm being honest and reporting it for uninterested parties to look at for inclusion here. See Talk:Kyrill (storm)#Article name and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Meteorology#European windstorm article naming. Enough said really...-- Nilf anion ( talk) 18:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Changed "Chinese/Korean state" to neutral term "ancient kingdoms", and respective entries in Encylopedia Britannica have been used as a basis for the name of those kingdoms.
Just wanted to say thanks to the editors who added images/funny captions. Really adds to this page! -- Jfruh ( talk) 14:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I know a lot of the edit wars on articles from this list are funny and irrevelent but I think it is inappropiate to include an issue like Goguryeo for a list of stupid and immature edit wars. The edit war over Goguryeo is not stupid or immature or irrevelent.
I know some of you are going to respond with a "this is the English wikipedia" but Goguryeo is an extremely important issue that is both cultural and emotional.
There haven't been any 3RR and anoymous editors waging move or edit wars on the Goguryeo article itself.
I ask for this article to be taken off the list and the template off the talk page of Goguryeo. Good friend100 22:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Clerks#Misnamed.3F There was a dispute over whether the correct spelling is "Clerks" or "Clerks." Adamv88 20:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
This page is a good laugh.. especially the bits about the "semen" article with the exhibitionist nerd, the "aspie" userbox and the teddy bear picture in the missionary position article. keep up the good work Kotare 00:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Who decideds what gets added? I hate to say it, but I was involved in one that could be on here (actually, I was involved in the WWE Armageddon one as well). It's Baby (Dragon Ball), although the page was still called Bebi (Dragon Ball) when it happened. Back at the end of August, me and another user mader about 100 reverts in about a 8 hour period (resulting in both of us beng blocked) over whether or not the character (and the series he was in) was considered canon. The dispute came because Akira Toriyama (creater of the Dragon Ball franchise) designed the character and provided input on the series he was in (Dragon Ball GT), but did not creat GT or heavily involved. So doesn't 100 reverts in 1 day over wheter an animated character is canon or not lame enough? It was August 31 for those who want to check the page's edit history. TJ Spyke 09:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure we all know and love 24, and the digital clock that serves as its unofficial mascot. However, there is one gripping question that is quite notable and fully deserving of a slow edit war: Is 24's digital clock ISO8601 compliant?
A little slow moving but it chugs right along. Now complete with a source on how maybe possibly perhaps it stems from American unfamiliarity with ISO8601 standards. Let's see how long it takes the clock to get an article of its own to better explore these issues. Bitnine 18:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Considering that most of the reverts/removals were due to WP:NOR policy, this is not entirely a lame editwar (or perhaps, at least not yet). -- Stratadrake 00:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
A nomination - there is, as I type, a HUGE discussion bobbling along over, wait for it, if Celtic is a British Football Club, or a Northern European Football Club [6]. And living in a glass house, I was dragged into a pathetic debate about the meaning of the word "evidence" here. LeeG 00:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
E.g., my edits here. How should we classify edit wars regarding spelling variants over an article's name? I moved them under the "Spelling" section to be consistent with such examples as "Cultured dairy snack" (aka yogurt). -- Stratadrake 19:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm reasonably sure that the entire saga of this mess needs a write-up. I've made a start in userspaace to try and gather together all the problems and premises. Kinitawowi 14:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
How about this?
-- Stratadrake 12:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to say thank you to the person who added this here. Why? Because, sadly, it's the closest thing to progress we've had since the article was protected...nearly a month ago... Elsnerma 20:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The history says it all. Dboyz-x.etown 22:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, maybe not funny per se, but definitely a "lame edit war." See Asuka period, Kofun period, other early Japanese history related articles...
Can the Three Kingdoms of Korea be called "Korea" or should they be called "the Korean peninsula"? Or should they ungrammatically be called "Korean peninsula"? Can we use the term "Korea" to apply to a number of separate kingdoms ages before they were united into a modern nation-state? Does it even matter at all?
What makes this especially funny I think is that (a) these tiny minor edits completely dominate the edit history of these pages. As of right now, the last 40 or so edits spanning roughly the last 15 days have concerned very very little beyond the fight over this term. (b) while arguments over "China" vs "mainland East Asia" vs a number of other similar terms have come up, it seems that there's almost never arguments over "Japan" vs "Japanese archipelago" despite the fact that there was no singular united modern nation-state called "Japan" until 1868. I wouldn't be surprised if Spain, Great Britain / United Kingdom, Italy, and Germany, all relatively new concepts as united nation-states within the last 300 years or so, do not see the kind of petty pointless fighting that this Korean issue does. It's not even a pro-Korean, anti-Chinese or anti-Japanese nationalism thing; it's just lame.
Thanks for letting me vent. I hope no one's offended by my posting here. ^_^ LordAmeth 12:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Should University of Wisconsin be a redirect to University of Wisconsin system, or an article all about the Madison campus, ignoring all the others. Discussion occupies over half of 99kB long Talk:University of Wisconsin/Archive 3 and all 53 kB and counting of Talk:University of Wisconsin. Αργυριου (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Why is this gargantuan mess not here? Bsically a war between 4chan and a mod who didn't want mention of their (well documented) super invasion of Habbo Hotel.
While I am a main participant in the dispute, I am not so blind with fury that I cannot see how hilariously fucking stupid it is is and how ironic that an organisation set up to promote community has proved so divisive. Check out the history. It's spilled over into whether WP:EA should go to Esperanza or Editor assistance, and onto about five people's talkpages. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
An on-going, 11 month long edit war on whether Shadow the hedgehog is part of the main series or not. It’s definitely canon as it concludes a storyline of Sonic Heroes, but is the fact you don’t play as sonic and the gunplay enough to exclude it. The whole debate eventually led to the article getting protected for a month so that editors could discuss this all important issue. Eventually, inclusion critter was created expressly for the sole purposes of solving the issue. However, the debate still rages.
I’m probably the lamest editor within this entire dispute, but even so, I see how lame this argument is. El cid the hero 19:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
While I don't want to suggest that the lede be fixed and never improved upon, I'm rather disappointed by how forced, rough, and just plain unfunny it is now. Remember this version? That was far better. -- C S (Talk) 02:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to nominate Talk:Cow tipping - they're actually arguing over whether or not the cow in the image on the article can be unsuspecting or not. (that's the jist of it - you need to go there to get the full scope of how lame this edit war actually is). Yankees76 19:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Um... nobody seems to have noticed that Cow Tipping has been on the project page for a long time now. See Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Pictures and scroll down a bit. = Axlq 04:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I was the one who suggested changing that caption. It wasn't that it was unsuspecting, it was the caption sounded a little humorus. -- ASDFGHJKL= Greatest Person Ever+ Coolest Person Ever 20:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The Principality of Sealand is not on the list, but [[Image:Sealand Fortress]], an image for the article is in this article with a small explanation eluding to what the edit war was about. Miss Mondegreen | Talk 08:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd like your feedback. Does this discussion qualify: Talk:Hans_Filbinger#Regarding_only_the_translation_of_.22Was_damals_Recht_war.2C_kann_heute_nicht_Unrecht_sein.21.22. It's not actually an edit war, but a veeery lengthy debate about whether or not the German words Recht and Unrecht can be accurately translated with lawful-unlawful or whether they are so ambigous that two translations are needed within the main text. By now, I estimate the discussion is longer than the main article. (Uh, and it was started and kept alive by myself). Blur4760 22:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Halo 3#Nine Inch Nails - You decide! -- Yeti Hunter 07:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
As I've been involved in it, I don't want to write the paragraph myself, but a single sentence in the Y2.038k article has probably been the source of half of the non-vandalism-related edits since the article's creation. Personally, I find it simultaneously hilarious and encўclopædïç, but others insist on regularly removing it. To get an idea of just how big an issue this is, check out the length of the sentence itself compared to the comments that we've been forced to surround it with to reduce the number of out-of-hand removals. Examples: [7] [8] [9] [10] Jouster ( whisper) 09:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The whole Qian Zhijun deletion wars thing needs to be dealt with, as it was an unusually lame wheel war. I'm not up to it, however. Any volunteers? Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 07:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Surely we need to document
this
this! Check out these gems:
Iamunknown, You seem to think that all of these admins are trying to help Wikipedia. it isn't. They're out to team up with eachother and terrorize the "peasant" users to the point where we will no longer contribute. And these admins have succeeded in their goals. This is why I want my account deleted.
I did read those policies, and followed the EXACT PROCEDURES to ensure that any removal of Image:LaToyaJackson.jpg was unjustifiable. Of course, these terrible admins found their ways around it pretty quick. They shove their own personal beliefs onto Wikipedia instead of remaining neutral as they should. Because THEY don't like La Toya Jackson, they have to make her article boring by removing all pictures. That's TYPICAL of most admins!
Crosslinked at WP:AGENDA. Jouster ( whisper) 01:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
sadly, i found myself involved in a lame edit war recently, over in Talk:Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism#W.Y.Evans Wentz and the attached article, about whether the author should be cited as "Wentz, W.Y. Evans" or "Evans Wentz, W.Y." (or even "Evans-Wentz, W.Y."). most amusing of all is that the cite given by the other party actually supports all three forms. Whateley23 08:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)