Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sue Rangell/B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A.


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was keep - no sound basis to delete from userspace, where we give a bit of latitude to silliness. Metamagician3000 09:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Sue Rangell/B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A.
''' I am requesting a ruling on this. The nomination was withdrawn. Now it's reversed.(is that even legal?) The nominator has also moved the page while it was still under discussion. There is clearly no consensus to delete. I am asking that this whole waste of time be dropped. Enough is enough. We have to have rules.'''

Sue Rangell &#91; citation needed &#93; 22:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a humor page with most of the text lifted from WP:ROUGE, reversing the direction (Eng Lit types: do you know the proper word? Put it here.) of WP:ROUGE and substituting ‘B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A.’ for the subject. Unless I’ve missed something, that’s a reference to the Encyclopædia Brittanica, which is a contemporary work. Now, humour is a fine thing, but I don’t think it’s proper for us to make fun of a major competitor like that. Also, the hyperbolic descriptions from WP:ROUGE are mildly offensive when applied to an outside entity. So I think it’s best not to keep this essay in any namespace, in its present form. (Or maybe I didn’t get the joke.) This page was speedily deleted as B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A, but it can’t hurt to get some kind of consensus… —xyzzyn 02:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. Per the discussion below, I’ve removed the potentially offending term everywhere I found it. I withdraw this nomination under the assumption that nobody wants the old term back. There’s a redirect left that can be dealt with later. —xyzzyn 01:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to withdraw the nomination, that's great, but you cannot move a page while it is still under discussion, especially if it is in someone elses user space, and without any consensus. If you disagree, feel free to nominate it for deletion yet another time, but this is getting tired. Thank you. Sue Rangell &#91; citation needed &#93; 22:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete for the same reason as the first. Could this be speedy deleted as a recreation of deleted content? Koweja 02:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The artical was NEVER speedy deleted. It survived a speedy delete, then was put up for deletion again. This time I felt too much time was being wasted on it, so I withdrew my objection to the delete and left it to the admins. It ended up being moved to my user page. Now it is here, up for deletion a ridiculous third time. Sue Rangell &#91; citation needed &#93; 05:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether it is in user space or not, it is still tasteless (and a potential PR disaster) to have a page like this. Strong delete. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 02:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A PR DISASTER??? Britannica is not Brittanica. They are two different things, spelled differently. One is an encyclopedia, the other is this. You guys amaze me. Sue Rangell &#91; citation needed &#93; 04:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, some silly stuff in someone's user page, so what. I recommend some people grow a thicker skin. ~ trialsanderrors 02:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the third time this article has been up for deletion in 24 hours! I'm not sure what the problem is, the article is funny, it's in my own space now, there are about 15 other articles which are very similar. I really don't understand what the controversy is all about, seriously. Now with that having been said, I will not make waves. I am standing back to let this process take it's course. It's not important to me if it's deleted or not. It's just a harmless silly little article I wrote up to fit in with a few other silly little articles I've come across. What bothers me is the amount of time being spent debating this goofy little piece. I'm not an admin, but I assume you folks' time is pretty valuable to be arguing amongst yourselves (THREE TIMES IN 24 HOURS) about this silly little thing I wrote up in about 3 minutes to get a little chuckle! You guys have spent more time discussing it than I did writing it. I don't see anything wrong with the piece, but I'd rather you delete it than waste all this time. Seriously. Sue Rangell &#91; citation needed &#93; 02:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What are the other 15 articles? —xyzzyn 02:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No way. They are funny articles which do not need to be deleted.Sue Rangell &#91; citation needed &#93; 03:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've Speedy Deleted it as recreation of previously deleted material. There's been enough discussion over the deletion of this page at WP:DRV already, where the overwhelming consensus was the page should remain deleted. Moving pages about shouldn't permit the page's creator to circumvent both process and consensus. --  Nick  t  02:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I userfied the article back into her userspace, that's a clear exepmtion from WP:CSD. Keep your finger off the delete button if you don't understand the speedy criteria. ~ trialsanderrors 02:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's gonna end up deleted one way or the other, arguing about the reason for deletion is pretty pointless. -- Nick  t  02:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per above. I've got nothing else to add. --James, La gloria è a dio 03:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok everyone I really don't want to see all of this time spent discussing a silly page I wrote in three minutes. I went through and edited out everything that has been mentioned so far. While it's not as long as it was, I don't see how anyone could object to it in any way. Why? Because I respect you guys and what you do. I know each of you is trying to help make Wiki a better place and I can't stand seeing all this debate and wasted time. If theres anything else I can do tell me what it is. Sue Rangell &#91; citation needed &#93; 03:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Explained here &rarr; Adminitis. ~ trialsanderrors 03:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * keep have we nothing better to do than harass people over silly but harmless user pages? Derex 08:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Silly, harmless, we wouldn't even know about it if it wasn't being shunted around. – Riana talk 14:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 'KeepHe why not, small essay in userspace. Ab e g92 contribs 15:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Neutral discontentione, WP:POINT, WP:AFG, WP:HARMLESS and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If this gets kept I reserve the right to create controversial essays on my userpage as a result using this as precedence.--WaltCip 20:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * With one exception, there is no such thing as "precedent" on Wikipedia. Chris cheese whine 23:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Mild objection to the fact that it's a straight lift of WP:ROUGE, but if it were really that objectionable, it would have been WP:OFFICEd already. In the meantime, let it lie.  Userspace is the one part of the 'pedia where WP:HARMLESS actually is valid reasoning.  Chris cheese whine 23:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I feel as if this kind of thing should be on uncyclopedia and not at wikipedia. --James, La gloria è a dio 00:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I speedied this when it was in Wikipedia space because using official space to make fun of Britannica (no matter how you choose to spell it) was a horrible idea from a public relations point of view, and not in keeping with the policy against attack pages. While, I wouldn't speedy it in user space, I still consider that using any part of Wikipedia to make fun of third parties is a serious violation of what we are about.  If it wasn't associated with Britannica, I wouldn't object to keeping it as is, but since it is, I favor deletion.  Dragons flight 04:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. This is easily fodder for a "slow news day" story about Wikipedia (wherein the blogger/journalist doesn't know or doesn't care that it's in user space).  That might be an acceptable price to pay if this was really funny and attempting to humorlessly claim it was real attack would boomerang, but, uh, no offense, but it's not funny (happens to us all) and would surely be deleted from Uncyclopedia too.  So all downside, no upside.  If it is kept, I'd recommend the humor tag prominently placed on top.  (Also, if Sue Rangell would like to continue to work on it, I'd have no problem with giving her time; it's just that the essay as is should probably go.) SnowFire 06:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But, then, where does she work on it? Ab e g92 contribs 10:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If Sue says she wants to work on it, then we don't delete. Simple enough.  (And if it comes to naught, a request for a courtesey blank / db-author). SnowFire 13:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Answer Again, Britannica is not Brittanica. They are two different things, spelled differently. One is an encyclopedia, the other is this. The article has nothing to do with any encyclopedia, PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA! (Sorry about the added emphasis, but it keeps getting ignored as you can see by reading above) Brittanica is also a female name. Sue Rangell &#91; citation needed &#93; 17:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * ...no, I saw that before, it's just that it doesn't make a lick of sense. Are you saying that the similarity between the two words is coincidental?  Come on; what little humor that is here rests on the fact that this essay suggests that the encylcopedia Britannica has some fiendish plot to covertly destroy Wikipedia.  This would just be bizarre, unfunny paranoia if it was entitled Y.O.L.E.T.E.K. or something else totally unrelated. And if you didn't mean to draw a connection to the encyclopedia, you do realize that this will be interpreted as Britannica anyway, right?


 * Explaining humor is normally a losing endeavor, but How to be Funny and not just Stupid gives it a shot. This joke is fine as a side reference in Primogeniture; it suggests that one of the few ways to fall from grace involves working for the shadowy and mysterious "enemy," and leaves it at that.  Actually detailing the organization isn't funny.  Imagine someone wrote an article about the secret organization R.U.U.S.I.A. (not Russia!) that is engaged in secret attempts to destroy the West or something.  It sounds more like the insane rantings of an isolationist, not humor (though interestingly enough, if you went completely over the top with this, then it could work again- turn it into an actual scenery-chewing rant about the evils of Britannica and how they will destroy freedom, dignity, and civiliation itself if they succeed against Wikipedia, the one true hope of mankind). SnowFire 20:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, because it would be bad precedent to delete HARMLESS stuff from user space where so much OTHERCRAPEXISTS. However,
 * Sue, you invited me into this discussion.  I am quite honored to find you respect my integrity, since our previous relationship was because I reverted your lame gag.  You were right to trust my integrity on the issue of policy, because you are not winning me over on humor.  You know a joke when you see it, but you don't know a good one from a weak one.  One log floats.  Lash two together and they both float.  Lash several together and you have a raft that floats.  However, you will not have a boat.  Good comedy requires proper selection and crafting of each joke to fit into the whole.  Don't quit your day job; you are not a humor engineer. — Randall Bart 20:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you Bart (I think!), I don't hold anything anyone says against them. I know all of the detractors above are just trying to do what's best for Wiki, even if we don't all agree. It's all good! :) Sue Rangell &#91; citation needed &#93; 01:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As we all know from The People vs. Larry Flynt (actually Hustler Magazine v. Falwell), it doesn't matter if this scores a 10 on the funny scale, but if any serious person could seriously confuse this with a serious essay. Last time I checked the admin bit doesn't come with a bad humor delete button. (This is in no way a judgment on the humor content of this essay, but on the case of Kollektive Admin Kneejerk that seems to hit this little community from time to time.) ~ trialsanderrors 04:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, If someone wants to have a joke, feel free, just keep it in User space (like it is now), I'm sure you could find equally poor jokes in an administrators userspace, has anyone put them up for deletion? --NigelJ talk 20:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this page being in user space. People extoll the various appropriate acronyms above. ;) Vassyana 09:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above; unfunny rouge spinoff and we have no business taking stabs at Britannica. Yes, Sue, I've read your "It has nothing to do with Encyclopedia Britannica" rant, which makes no sense. TomTheHand 17:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weakest of all possible deletes. Yes, it's an attack page, but even if it were spelt correctly, EB could suck it up. (Sue, your link is to a redirect which spells Britannica wrong; the actual page is Insecta Britannica Diptera, as is the book.)     On the other hand, I really dislike meddling with user space unless necessary, and this isn't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but Brittanica is also a girl's name. :) That's what seems so odd about this whole discussion. It's as if I made up a fictitious group called L.I.S.A. and people were concerned that Apple computer would object because they have a product called Lisa, except this isn't even THAT good, because the acronym doesn't even spell out correctly. I regret that this silly little lark has wasted such a large amount of everyone's time. Sue Rangell &#91; citation needed &#93; 18:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * False analogy, as your essay has no visible relation whatsoever to Apple’s product. So why not just substitute B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A. by L.I.S.A. (or Y.O.L.E.T.E.K. or, for that matter, S.U.E.)? —xyzzyn 17:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a false analogy at all, in fact it's dead on. As for the reason B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A. was used...Because the link from the originating page used it! You make it sound like I made up the acronym, I didn't. It's on other pages as well. I could have sworn this was explained above. Sue Rangell &#91; citation needed &#93; 04:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I searched, but only found it on WP:ROUGE (where you added it) and WP:PRIMO (and MFD, DRV and various talk pages, of course); either instance could be easily changed for consistency. —xyzzyn 09:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I used B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A. to be consistant with other pages, not the other way around. If WP:PRIMO had used Y.O.L.O.T.E.K. then that's what I would have used. If you want to go change the references on those other pages, or put those pages up for deletion, nobody can stop you I suppose, but this whole thing as gone too far (In my opinion) as of a week ago. Never in my life would I have imagined such a goofy little joke creating so much controversy! I don't care what happens to the article, I leave that to the wisdom of the admins, but I find the PROCESS fascinating. People discussing policy, etc. etc., and how even a silly little humor article gets the same attention as an article on a king or president. I'm humbled. I want to thank everyone (Pro and Con) for the lesson and the insight. Be well. Sue Rangell &#91; citation needed &#93; 20:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed WP:PRIMO and User:Sue_Rangell/B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A. and moved the latter to User:Sue Rangell/Y.O.L.O.T.E.K.. WP:ROUGE doesn’t currently link to it, although I’m not sure whether the reason is good. (I used Y.O.L.O.T.E.K. because it doesn’t currently get any Google hits and I want to fix that.) —xyzzyn 20:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (By the way, that’s not a typo. It’s the British spelling of Y.O.L.E.T.E.K.…) —xyzzyn 20:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to nominate for deletion if you choose, but PLEASE refrain from rewriting (or moving) articles in my user space, and changing other articles that link to it. The rule clearly states you cannot move pages until the discussion is over. I have repaired the damage. Thank you Sue Rangell &#91; citation needed &#93; 21:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose this means the acronym is important, after all. —xyzzyn 22:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Is anyone sure this isn't against WP:USER?--WaltCip 13:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.