Talk:Ha-ha

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ha-ha article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1: 365 days

Horticulture and Gardening Low‑importance

	Gardening portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Horticulture and Gardening 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.Horticulture and GardeningWikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningTemplate:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningHorticulture and gardening articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Urban studies and planning Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning 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.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

“No dude”[edit]

@Johnbod:, why is deleting a bunch of random literary mentions of ha-has with no secondary sources wrong? Dronebogus (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how they are "random", and how the various physical examples mentioned are not? Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because they’re trivial mentions; physical examples… um… exist. Dronebogus (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking about "random" - we can come on to trivial. Johnbod (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think this odd digression about semantics is important here. Circling back to my original question, why did you restore unsourced, trivial fancruft? Dronebogus (talk) 08:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was restored because it was a long-standing list of examples where ha-has are a plot device in well-known works of fiction, which like all good "in culture" sections demonstrates the spread and depth of the concept. Which is why I have restored them. There could be arguments about certain elements and sourcing added, but it ain't dismissable fancrust. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some solid entries - Dawson, Stoppard, Pratchett - and a few more lightweight but defensible ones. Could possibly stand thinning but it's not a case for wholesale removal. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, thanks both, "unsourced, trivial fancruft" is a ridiculous description, and you refuse to back up or explain your description as "random", not to mention "trivial". I've added an academic reference for the Mansfield Park ha-ha. Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I’ve removed several that were just “hey this appeared or was mentioned in a famous novel!”, but if they were really notable they should all have independent references. Dronebogus (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - You seem to suffer from the common misapprehension that all the content of WP articles has to be "notable". WP:NOTABILITY applies only to the subjects of articles, not what is in them. There has been an attempt to develop a concept of what is "noteworthy", as something the content needs to be, but this is in its early stages. Flinging random pejorative terms at content you don't like doesn't advance discussion. Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Usually individual items listed outside of pure exemplification are expected to be notable. Otherwise I could just as easily put “there’s a ha-ha at my local college campus” or some obvious WP:MILL nonsense like that as I could put in fancruft. Dronebogus (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think that's true, actually. Very few college campuses have ha-has for obvious health & safety reasons. Isn't there something about this in the article. Johnbod (talk) 03:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It was just an example Dronebogus (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Har har" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Har har has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 21 § Har har until a consensus is reached. Okmrman (talk) 04:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]