Wikipedia talk:Iron Law of Infobox Ubiquity

Some rough material
Here's some material that I think didn't strike the right tone, though maybe it can be cannibalized here and there:

== Be prepared ==


 * Following are the most obvious signs that typically invoke The Iron Law.
 * Discussion size - when the word and character count are ≥ 4,786 words - 28,044 characters;
 * Admins join the discussion - the invocation of admins to the discussion is a planned tactic in infobox wars; liken it to Trump invoking the wrath of the media - it is a deliberate maneuver, it's free coverage, it incites the opposition while at the same time it stokes the fire that motivates infobox warriors, and best of all, involved admins can't impose blocks anymore than the media can impeach Trump;
 * Lack of substantive arguments - when one side is overwhelmed by the substantive arguments of the opposition, and PAs have not been productive, invocation of Godwin's law typically comes first. If infobox warriors are on their game, The Iron Law follows. When that happens, it's time to stop digging.

== The rule of stop digging ==


 * The only digging infobox warriors indulge in are foxholes to deflect opposition attacks.

EEng 20:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's all satire, of course, most of which is exaggeration of the discussions I've seen at ANI and on TP, one of which I made the mistake of commenting in. Maybe you can find some humor in it...even if it's at my expense. Atsme 📞📧 20:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, as Ian might say....
 * "Noel Coward was a charmer.
 * As a writer he was brahma.
 * Velvet jackets and pyjamas,
 * The Gay Divorce and other dramas."
 * ...."There ain't half been some clever bastards". I would link a YouTube video... but, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Added to after closing - Bonus points for the number of close boxes a topic ends up nested in. Natureium (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment
This is the best thing I've seen all month. I've added getting my own law to my bucket list. Natureium (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Beware Miller's law of eponymy. EEng 02:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I was hoping this would take the place on my bucket list of the more difficult goal of discovering an anatomical structure I could name for myself, but now I see I can just usurp someone else's discovery. Thanks! Natureium (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

In the news
[https://blog.wikimedia.org/2018/06/07/los-angeles-edit-a-thon/ ... while six women nearby discussed “infoboxes” for the first time ...] —David Eppstein (talk) 07:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * SMirC-chuckle.svg, the timing...the timing!!! Must be divine intervention....Atsme 📞📧 13:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Those poor unsuspecting ladies. Like lambs to slaughter. EEng 14:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

About the second law
So was the incorrect use of "your" instead of the correct "you're" intentional? And I've grown too jaded seeing this error on Twitter to protest about it here. -- llywrch (talk) 07:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Given the context and the later "whose", I imagine so. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to hurt any feelings, but... Duh! E<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The Second Law
Isn't this the same as the better-known Muphry's law? Narky Blert (talk) 06:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * One of its countless incarnations, yes. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 13:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)