Wikipedia talk:Lamest edit wars/Archive 4

Lizard
I think that Lizard should be included here. It is a very recent thing, by the way. 78.151.50.102 (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems like a pretty normal discussion to me. I'm instead considering "Cthulhu mythos" or "Cthulhu Mythos" (note the case of "m/Mythos"). Although, it was a short debate that didn't run for year after year like one of the lamest ― the "nationality" of Copernicus, and the long term marked as POV. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 11:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Query
Is this place kept up to date? Simply south (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Silk soy milk?
I was wondering whether the recent edit war over whether a paragraph mentioning that Silk no longer uses organic beans belonged in the soy milk article might belong on the list? Twin Bird (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I dont know about you but shouldn't articles under the target of severe editwars be locked down for a week? - Meomix - August 2010

Malamanteau
The betting pool is now open on how long it takes Malamanteau, its mention (or not) on Xkcd, and the related discussion (I use the word loosely) at Talk:Malamanteau, Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 May 12, Deletion review, and Talk:Xkcd to qualify for WP:LAME. Assuming we're not already there. — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this lame enough?
There seems to be an edit war going on right now on Enceladus over whether an image is comparing the moon to the length of the United Kingdom, Great Britain, or the British Isles. The talk page is getting pretty heated. --Patteroast (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination "Prime Minister" or "prime minister"
here very amusing when i found ithere by accident. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I Nominate Airplane
Not only was their a war over the name being Airplane/Aeroplane, but it had the lamest compromise ever. It is now at Fixed-wing aircraft. --WikiDonn (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Zeno's Paradox
Its been a dead issue for several months now since the antagonist was blocked, but was anyone else staggered at this edit war and this user's obsessiveness? []? +&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;+ (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Lame
When the dispute right now is over, it should be listed on the page. It's pretty lame.... RECURSION ERROR! ( X! ·  talk )  · @341  · 07:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't entirely see, though, the necessity of protecting it so quickly... Sithman VIII !! 18:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Bot wars
I just want to say I found this page completely hilarious and the bot wars section was particularly amusing.207.35.67.130 (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Association football
I removed it a few weeks ago, on the basis that discussion reaching a workable solution is a good thing, and should not be mocked. It's what we're trying to achieve. It was reinstated by an anonymous IP with mysteriously high knowledge of policy a bit earlier. I reverted that particular edit owing to a clear accusation of bad faith against me, but accept that there should be discussion on the matter (and that if it is reinstated with a tolerable edit summary, I should not do so again). I invite further comments from registered users. Regards, WFC (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If, as i suspect, Association football has been the subject of an overly heated edit war in the past (i havent read the talk pages or history yet), then it should definitely be here. the paragraph most recently warred over HERE is definitely POV, but simply needs to be rewritten, not added then deleted, as this humorous page requires that we present the war neutrally. nevertheless, i find it amusing to the extreme that we have a lame edit war over whether there was a lame edit war over AF. Wait until XKCD reads this...:) oh, and by the way, it SOCCER, for tanj sake!(seriously, just kidding. I just hope when i travel overseas other people will call it AF, or ill sound like a wikigeek.)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've had a good (slightly inadvisable) rant, and believe that I'm now capable of taking part in this discussion..


 * I completely agree with you. The fact is, there has been much debate over the naming of association football in the past, but never edit wars. It was once named Football (soccer), and after much discussion, became Association football. WFC (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (PS It's football, and 1–1 is a draw, not a win :P). WFC (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Im willing to assume good faith and trust your statement. if it actually didnt rise to level of edit war, then it doesnt belong here. Actually, to be honest, The US should rename its football as american rugby, or murderball, or anything, and call its soccer teams football teams. but the myth of american exceptionalism is an unfortunate reality in this world. Lets not let Team America: World Police get wind of this issue.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not being honest. The name of the sport is in fact association football. It's even right there in the name FIFA, for International Federation of Association Football. There are many types of football, association football is merely one of them. The terms association football and soccer are not American creations. And why is it that no one bashes Canada for their use of the word soccer? After all, in Canada, the word football refers to either Canadian of American Football. Yet none of the bashers take Canada to task. This has nothing to do with American exceptionalism. You're the one trying to act as World Police.--RLent (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No it's not good faith. Just look at the edit logs on Association Football...there has clearly been an issue with the name from the start of the Association Football article. Some editors wanted to move the whole article at one point to Football (soccer). On this page, I reverted the change because I had read the entry ages ago, it gave me a giggle. When I came back to today, it had gone. It's deletion seems to have been made on spurious grounds that all. So I reinstated it. No one else had objected to it being  Association Football name being called a Lame Edit War and it had been there for at least a year or so! I am certain if you let this WFC have their way, how many other entries could be deleted? If one user says it wasn;t an edit war. Does this mean that any user can now take umbrage at discussions (they have been involved in) being labelled as "lame"? Besides WFC reverted my change almost immediately which suggests that the speed of the revert has more to do with issues under WP:OWN than with "good faith".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.225.15 (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Demonstration that this nice person clearly understands good faith. See also: WP:SOCK. WFC (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

List of European countries and territories
I wish to nominate List of European countries and territories, an edit war which I am currently a part of. The discussion on the talk page is very heated and has resulted in numerous insults and accusations. I've tried to be a mediator but the war is just annoying me now. The talk page has been re-arranged by someone but it is still all there, I think. Should England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland be listed as countries as well as the UK? Who cares? A small group of people seem to care a lot. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 10:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Gender of God entry...
At the moment, it reads: How about 'Gender of Gods', gotta remember those damn pagans.... is that an abbreviation for damned? If so, can someone be damned if they do not believe in a God who would do it? --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 12:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Upcoming attractions
We might add something from here (Arbitration/Requests/Case) once the arbitration is over or dismissed. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Harvard University for another gem. ~DC  Let's Vent 15:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Long discussions are not added to this page (even if they are lame), only edit wars. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Umm...
I thought it went against Wikipedia's policies to make, shall we say... sarcastic comments in an artilcle. This is more befitting the Uncyclopedia and TV Tropes wikis. Not that I don't like it, it just seems a bit out of place here. 207.216.208.68 (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it is a humor page, and we have plenty of others. I think it is nice that we are self-deprecating like this; with the passage of time, it allows disputants to see how silly the dispute really was. NW ( Talk ) 13:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In the past it's been nominated for deletion seven times, and survived every one, so consensus is firmly that it should exist. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify the difference further, Lamest edit wars starts with "Wikipedia:" which means it is in the Project namespace. It is not an article and not a part of the encyclopedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This article has been nominated for inclusion
Gadsby (novel), whether the article on this example of a lipogram should be written without the letter "e". This point has been debated since 2005, resulting in versions with and without the fifth letter being swapped back & forth, for 5 years when the matter ends up on Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents. Where the dispute is settled for the moment, & where the dispute is nominated for inclusion in WP:LAME. ("It's an obvious violation of our policy on silly disputations and unworthy variations from our common goals - put it down in our log of such actions.") Anyone want to write the entry be as a lipogram? -- llywrch (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleted pages
Edit wars involving deleted pages, should they be removed from the list? Hey Mid  (contribs) 12:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No. This article is about the wars themselves, not the pages. - GeiwTeol 15:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Dates?
It would be nice if some idea of the date of each war was given, or perhaps some links to especially chaotic revisions of the pages or talk pages. It would make for a much more interesting read. Some of these articles are very old and the wars happened quite some time ago, so it is difficuilt for an uninvolved person to find it in the history. - GeiwTeol 15:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Most closures of a single AfD?
What's the largest number of closures that a single AfD has ever had? Not different AfDs -- I'm talking about closures of a single AfD. I was just involved in Articles for deletion/Jared Lee Loughner, which was closed as speedy redirect speedy keep speedy not delete (with one DRV thrown in the mix), but surely there have been better ones.--Father Goose (talk) 08:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Activism
The goings on at Activist probably deserve documentation here. It's been taken to MfD, edit warred over, redirected, reverted, and now fully protected and taken to ArbCom. Fences &amp;  Windows  01:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * So let it be written, so let it be done. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible permanent resolutions
For ones that the subject or subjects are still alive, ask them! (except for maybe some of the bands, as they themselves would break up over the argument) 173.76.182.203 (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit history for the tiger war
i'm sorry if i am asking something ridiculous, but the tiger edit war sounds really funny! does anyone have the talk history for it? 66.59.49.88 (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

External links ×2
Noticeably, there are two "External links" sections in this article. The first for edit wars involving external links and the second for actual external links related to the article. Should one of these be renamed to avoid ambiguity? Perhaps "External link wars" for the first, or perhaps "Actual external links" for the second (keeping in line with the humour of the article)? I'm thinking, of course, of the possible confusion when linking to a particular section of the page. – RobinHood70 talk 20:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The Man Who Would Be Queen
In how many ways can one say "POV pushing"? Sadly, while the long-term edit war there is surely lame, I can't think of any humorous way to present it. Any takers/ideas? Tijfo098 (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do not include the Mexican~American war fiasco here
That dispute has resulted in over-the-top action by an admin at WP:AN. I thought it safest to treat the discussion there as some kind of elaborate joke: but it seems they might have been serious; and the inclusion on this page was taken as giving the dispute "official" status as egregiously lame, or something. Now, I'm the playful type myself. But this one was dangerous for a number of well-intentioned editors.

N oetica Tea? 12:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * ...It IS egregiously lame, and that's why it's here. And the fact that there was a consideration of topic bans for several editors (including yourself) makes it even lamer. As I said in my edit summary restoring the entry, this page is as much a cautionary tale as it is humor. You will never be named as part of the dispute on the Lamest Edit Wars page itself. Grand  master  ka  19:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "Lame" can be "serious" (though usually not vice versa).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * All the more reason to include it is by asking that it NOT be included.CaptianNemo (talk) 02:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Philosophy Edit War
With the release of the XKCD comic today that informed people about leading links that would eventually take a person to the "Philosophy" page, an extraordinary amount of edits resulted. I'm just wondering if this should be documented here. Swifty705 (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah, it's just petty vandalism. Gerardw (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The word I saw suggested for XKCD-inspired vandalism was "randallism". — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

"Most lame edit wars"
Since there is no such word as "lamest", at least in British English, I suggest we move this page to "Most lame edit wars", which at least has the virtue of being a correct construction in all varieties of the language. ðarkun coll 21:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Lamest" is a word. It's the superlative of "lame". What source is telling you that "lamest" is not a word? Also, British English is NOT required to be what the English Wikipedia is written in.WIERDGREENMAN (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * In British English the only legitimate way of saying this is "most lame". And Wikipedia has a policy of choosing neutral phrases where such exist (for an extreme example see Fixed-wing aircraft). "Most lame" is perfectly acceptable in both varieties, so it is the clear choice for the article title. ðarkun coll 08:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Seeing that this page has been "lamest" for over five years without an objection (correct me if I'm wrong), the current name must be rather acceptable to the vast majority of users. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 09:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Fast -> Faster -> Fastest. Lame -> Lamer -> Lamest. We thick Americans may have butchered the Queen's English, but you can see why we did in this instance. Let's not even get into the Swing -> "Swang" -> Swung or Bring -> "Brang" -> Brung end of things. Is this going to be its own future section? ;> Doc   talk  10:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. ;0WIERDGREENMAN (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Could the title of "Lamest edit wars" actually become one of the lamest edit wars? ... errr .. I mean .. most lame edit wars. — Ched : ?  20:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Would be the biggest irony. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  00:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support per Manual of Style. --Joshua Issac (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Professional wrestling

 * I haven't checked on whether Wikipedia has explored the issue this thoroughly. Elsewhere, however, both the billed height and the actual height of André the Giant, mostly the latter, have been subject of intense debate for years.  As to the fomer, the 1970s heyday of André's career (as opposed to his 1980s stint as a full-time WWF performer, in which he was clearly past his prime but his performances were viewed by more people due to the difference in television exposure) saw him performing as a special attraction throughout North America, where there were dozens of booking offices, and yet dozens more local promoters who obtained talent through the booking offices to promote their local events.  He was typically billed at 7'4", but because pro wrestling was soundly ignored by the mainstream media in those days, there was never any consistency in that regard because there was no need for such.  A number of promoters billed him as 7'5".  As to the latter, I'm sure plenty has been said already.  There are published sources referring to two events: first, that his long-standing 1970s feud with Ernie Ladd began exposing discrepancies.  Ladd was legitimately 6'9" and also billed as 6'9" as a wrestler, because his previous career in professional football would make it hard to explain were he to billed as anything other.  Footage or photos may still exist which show little appreciable difference in height between André and Ladd.  There are also published references to the fact that Manute Bol frequently visited WWF events when they ran monthly shows at the Capital Centre and kept asking to meet André, but that André consistently refused.  Supposedly, this was due to advice given to him by Vincent J. McMahon to never appear in public with similarly tall people, because public knowledge of the meeting and/or published photos would destroy the mystique built by promoters, mainly by McMahon.  That statement is actually in direct contradiction to the fact that McMahon promoted many of the matches between André and Ladd several years earlier.  Then there is the contention that his actual height steadily decreased over the years due to the acromegaly he suffered from.  Other sources would appear to contend that his actual height decreased due to back surgery.


 * A lesser instance didn't last very long, as it occurred between two anons and ended when the page was semi-protected. On Kayfabe, one anon kept inserting a mention that the on-air reference to Randy Orton as "Randal Keith Orton" constituted "breaking kayfabe," specifically a public reference to his "real name" versus his ring name on a televised broadcast.  Another anon kept reverting these edits, insisting that since his ring name is also his real name and that his full name is nothing more than a derivative, that either it wasn't breaking kayfabe or it wasn't encyclopedic.  One thing is for certain, the edit war was definitely rather lame.RadioKAOS (talk) 05:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Demi Moore
I don't know the process for getting something added to this list, but please, someone who does, please please get this one on it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC) It gets more delicious. One of the noble edit-warriors is now edit-warring over the thread header (see the history for this talk page). It goes without saying -- really it does, on this particular talk page -- that "fully stupid" refers to the edit war, not the person. I have nothing but respect for Ms Moore, whatever her real birth name might have been. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * See also Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, where the claims of edit warring on this page are being discussed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What's more lame...the fight over her "real name", or the edit-war over a BLP-aggrieving section heading? I'd say the latter. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 13:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Lameness within lameness... Lameception. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

This one is pretty lame
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_(241%E2%80%93260)/Mudkip_Meme_Inclusion_Debate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.211.189 (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Overhaul
I'm about to conduct a major overhaul of the article. It seems to me that quite a few of these entries are unreferenced and may even be simple talk page debates. I'll try to delete all entries that are only talk page debates and add references for the actual edit wars. Inter change  able | talk to me  16:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This whole page should be deleted. It is not "humorous" to poke fun at people who feel strongly about things that are important to them. At minimum, all but the most trivial and joky issues should be deleted. Some of the entries are about sensitive, controversial and highly non-trivial matters, and classifying disputes about them as "lame" displays an extraordinary lack of judgement. 86.176.210.154 (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think 86.167.19.92 makes a legitimate point here. I see WP:LAME as a way for us to remind ourselves to keep a sense of perspective, by gently mocking those folks who have spent untold hours debating the merits of "yogurt" vs "yoghurt".  Including more serious disagreements detracts from that purpose.  Also, this is a gigantic list, which would be better if the best (most trivial) examples weren't obfuscated by genuine controversies. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 05:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh-hem. This page is not about debates, which are excellent ways of conflict resolution and should be encouraged, however trivial they may be. It is about true edit wars, where participants revert back and forth many times without discussing why except in their edit summaries. Wikipedia is all about discussion and consensus. Those who attempt to ignore that and push their views are truly lame and should be included here as a reminder to the rest of us. Inter  change  able | talk to me  19:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This distinction is too precarious to justify serious matters, and matters about which people genuinely feel strongly, being described as "lame", "humorous" and "trivial" and listed on a page whose sole purpose seems to be to mock. 86.160.212.9 (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry Interchangeable, poor choice of words on my part. I was referring to the genuine back-and-forth edit war over "Yoghurt" vs "Yogurt", distinct from actual debate on the talk page.  My point is that this page should focus on edit wars over such trifles, and not edit wars over serious matters. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 05:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Serious-matter edit wars can be lame. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * AdrianJ, will you please provide a reference for the genuine edit warring? It's currently not in the entry. Inter  change  able | talk to me  16:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the fact the page spent over eight years being batted back and forth between titles is reference enough... - The Bushranger One ping only 17:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, some of those debates are pretty notable---and do include revision edits as different sides often tried to make their edits count. But some of the debates (ala the pregnancy one) were monstrosities over pretty trivial matters.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 21:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To quote this page, "It must have been an actual edit war. Discussions on talk pages, even over trivially lame details are not "edit wars" and should NEVER be added: we want to encourage such rational debates between users/viewpoints (as opposed to actual edit warring). Note that pithy quotes on talk pages may be suitable for Wikipedia:Talk page highlights." It is because of this guide line that I am conducting the overhaul. Inter  change  able | talk to me  23:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

How about this?
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Should it be Articles for Deletion or Articles for deletion? Cue lengthy back and forth debate, culminating in a Wikipedian declaring For fuck's sake, leave it alone.. Not an edit war per se but a pretty pointless debate over a pretty trivial thing. -- Ritchie333  (talk)  10:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And how about WP:The Last Word, which has had a bit of an edit war (that might just kick off again today if we're lucky) over whether or not it should have the tag on the essay. -- Ritchie333   (talk)  13:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Pluto
I'm a bit concerned about the inclusion of Pluto here. First of all, this isn't something as trivial as a capitalization or punctuation argument; scientists have debated this, so why wouldn't editors? Not exactly "lame". But more importantly, the entry says the raging debate took place on the talk page. If that's true, then it wasn't even an edit war. How can something be considered a "lame edit war" when editors didn't edit war, but discussed as they were supposed to do? Joefromrandb (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * By all means, remove it if you wish. I could certainly use some help with this overhaul (see above). Inter  change  able | talk to me  19:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Santorum straw poll
Let's settle it in the usual way, shall we? Because after all edit-warring is just lame. Straw polls are not lame. RfCs (if necessary) are even more not lame. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Include it

 * 1) Yep: because otherwise it's lame.  (Or do I have that backwards?)  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Irony?

 * 1) Are we really having a straw poll to see if another straw poll is lame? Tarc (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Peter Griffin. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

University Challenge
For info, the UK quiz show University Challenge has just had a round of (three) questions about this page.  Lugnuts  (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Highly amusing. Number   5  7  20:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Tooth fairy scandal

 * Started here, and after it went to ANI I was informed of it, then the second trip to ANI, caused temporary retirement, but you know, I think it may have a lame/funny side to it. Face-grin.svg Penyulap   talk 02:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

would this Haymarket affair edit conflict be one?
99.181.131.190 (talk) 07:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia February 12, 2012 The Chronicle of Higher Education regarding this Wikipedia article

No 1 cause of edit wars: Nationalist school systems -> Solution: create Wikipedia page warning about it
Isn't it weird that most of these edit wars concern nationalism? The reason these edit wars exist is because most people were educated in a school system that has heavy bias towards its own nationalism. You would think that what they teach you at school is all true and impartial. But that's not the case!

For example, the first time I came to Wikipedia, it was a real shock to me. I made significant contribution to Hungarian history based on what I learned at school. Only later did I see that most of my edits were reverted or changed because someone from Slovakia had a different opinion and he was taught something totally different at school than I was.

For instance, when Romania occupied Hungary for a brief time, in Hungary they call it the Romanian oppression, but in Romania they teach it as the Romanian liberation. Croatia is taught in Hungary as a province, but in Croatia it is taught as an independent country. In Hungary, Hungary is taught as the most significant part of the Hapsburg Empire yet in Austria, it's taught as a province. What's more, in Hungary I didn't even hear about the term Magyarization before because they simply don't teach that at school. In Slovakia, this is taught as a major element of curriculum.

What they teach us is that our country is great, our nation is great and that there are a few people who are our national heroes, and whenever "we" suffered it was unjust. For God's sake, even the Anthem of Hungary that every Hungarian has to know by heart is about the fact how great the nation is and that it suffered so much unjustly throughout the years. Nothing is ever mentioned about bad things that Hungary might have done to other nations. What's more, if a great man who invented great things hundreds years ago was born in Hungary, I'm supposed to feel proud of him, but if he was born a few kilometers on the other side of the border, I don't even know his name because it's not in the curriculum.

Why do I refer to another Hungarians as "us" but to a Slovak as "them". For the most part, most Hungarians do not ever leave the country so they live their life in the belief that they are great and other nations are bad. However, on the rare occasion when someone comes and declares that our national hero is from a different nationality, people get angry, because it strikes them at the heart of their national identity since all their life they have been taught to look up to these national heros, because it is them who make the nation great.

This is a LIE. It's a big fat lie. It seems the whole education system of most countries in the world is a just pretext to promote nationalism and control the population. There is a heavy dose of nationalist bias that presents the so called "facts of history" through a tinted glass.

Question is how can we tell people about this so that they won't start their mindless nationalist edit wars? It is extremely rare that they will recognize it by themselves, because they take what they have been taught throughout their lives as the one and only truth. And when these people meet someone else from different indoctrination background as them, that's when the edit wars start.

It took me about 1 year to realize that the Slovak editors aren't hostile and malicious, but only refute what they were taught at school and I'm refuting what I was taught at school, and that our different education systems shaped our identities and beliefs differently so that it is always us that the good guys are and the other ones are always the bad guys.

Therefore, I propose to create a Wikipedia page that warns new users about the indoctrination aspects and nationalist biases of their own education systems that define their identities and beliefs. We should tell them that just because someone is subject to a different nationlist propaganda, he is not malicious in any way, and therefore they shouldn't take the expression of his different beliefs as ad hominem attacks.

It would have helped me incredibly to learn this before I started editing on Wikipedia and not engage in non-sense nationalistic edit wars, which I did for almost a year before I realized what I was doing! All I was thinking about that I must teach these people the truth that I knew. So that's why in my opinion a Wikipedia page would be a great idea to teach new users about this, and as a result there would be a significant drop in edit wars! --Bizso (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A lot of what you are taking about is found at Neutral point of view. Your story is a good example of the good sides of Wikipedia: it is through Wikipedia that you learned to see things from different angles and not to take granted what you have learned at school or what it is believed in your social surroundings. As disruptive as edit wars seem to be, they are a means of getting to the bottom of things.
 * If you want to start a page about dealing with nationalism in Wikipedia, start writing it within a subpage such as User:Bizso/Dealing with nationalism and put a link to it at the Village pump asking for input from the community. Andreas  (T) 18:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Can we have a template tag?
I was wondering if we could have a template tag that could be added to articles that have appeared on WP:LAME? To say something such as "This article is notable for being the site of one of Wikipedia's Lamest Edit Wars"? It would be (a) useful to warn readers they were about to read something that has been contested (b) funny.--feline1 (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this is a good idea or not, but at a minimum I would think it should only go on talk pages, not on articles themselves. I would not think that we would generally want to be putting tags about past edit warring, lame or not, directly on the articles themselves.  - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

like wowwww me too —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonu27 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

A vote on the top 10 lamest edit wars
See Wikipedia talk:Department of Fun C h r o m a Nebula   (talk)   00:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Novak Djokovic
I am not 100% sure about this one, but there was some edit waring and a 1 year long discussion between May 2010 (4 edits on the 11th and again 6 edits on the 17th regarding the subject, with many more in between and after)and May 2011 regarding the nationality of the tennis player's parents. I found it not only lame because of how insignificant the detail is to his biography as someone actually tried to point out,but also the fact that the people involved ignored that on biography of living persons any detail minimally disputable or controversial should be automatically removed without further questions asked until, if ever, well sourced consensus is obtained. In addition a severe case of article ownership syndrome can be noticed. Learningnave (talk) 08:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Too long a page, POV on many places?
I believe that the page is very much POV when it comes to certain places, like when the birth year for Nancy Reagan was being discussed [I believe it to be perfectly correct a topic for a discussion/edit war]

Proposing to trim the article so that it is far more readable to anyone. Possibly include the number of edits and the time period, to just give a brief idea of the scale of the war?

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not an article and its not to be encyclopedic or abid by the rules. It is fun. The same way the entire Calvin and Hobbes comics collection is fun, or would you trim because 26 years of strips make it too long to read?! As for the edit wars they are not always lame because of the subject of the discussion, but because of the way discussions are carried out, usually involving total disregard for any and every possible wiki rule, trolling, personal insults, ressurecting of wars carried in battles in other possibly unrelated talk pages, sockpuppets, POV, reverting consensus decisions without bringing new reputable sources, article ownership syndrome, just to name a few.

As for the Nancy Reagan Date of Birth issue, the lame aspect is the fact it was re edited and ressurected a few times after the first apparently quite strong consensus was established. Yet I would agree that it does pale in lameness compared with most of the other examples.Learningnave (talk) 12:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly right, this is a sort of - And finally... at the end of the news where nonsens and frippery and record for entertainment, wonder and as a salutatory lesson. It is not part of the encyclopedia. Caesar&#39;s Daddy (talk) 07:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Barefoot#Going_barefoot
Yes, they are arguing about being barefoot. Including the veracity of "studies" done by people who catologue foot abrasions. You can't make this stuff up. Does this qualify as lame enough? --Sue Rangell &#91; citation needed &#93; 23:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this too Long?
I suggest spilt it like BJAODN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.38.70.7 (talk) 10:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No way! If you do that ill revert you over & over again! just kidding. But I think this is more convenient as it is.Assistant N (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability
Should we say please? Is it helpful to say you ought? Disputes over the precise wording of two sentences escalated into reams of heated discussion on the talk page, while dozens of reverts were racked up over the course of January. Bold, Revert, Discuss was invoked, leading to page protection when the editor who made the Bold edit asserted that 'Revert' referred to reverting the revert of that edit. An eventual calming down led to one editor editing one of the sections under scrutiny only for the reverting to begin again. Oh and some unrelated vandalism or test editing, in case things weren't confused enough. Seems to have calmed again, for now at least, but it's not resolved! All this over whether or not policy should say 'please'. CarrieVS (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek (I|i)nto Darkness
Not adding it yet, but consider this a nomination. Even aside from Randall Munroe calling it his favorite edit war, I think it's earned the honor. Jesse B. Hannah (talk) 07:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * For posterity, one user for whom the frustration proved too much to handle. Jesse B. Hannah (talk) 07:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What can I say? I'm one of these people. 98.231.136.194 (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not actually an edit war, is it? It's just a contentious discussion.  Powers T 12:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, unfortunately I have to agree with that. It's a hilariously pedantic contentious discussion, and in some sense deserves to be immortalized in a list like this.  But it's not technically an edit war.  (Of course the only thing that would make this more awesomer is if the discussion over whether this qualifies as an "edit war" devolved into a multi-ten-thousand word "contentious discussion"...  I'm game, anybody else?  :D ) ---24.93.16.177 (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You know, I think this is only NOT an edit war because the edit in question requires admin assistance (a title move). The other edit wars on this page can all be done quietly, without fanfare.  Fieari (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Clearly a contentious discussion about a proposed edit is indistinguishable from an edit war for the purposes of this discussion. For you to claim that it is hilarious clearly shows your lack of respect for the Wikipedia COS, and you should be banned forever. This meta-discussion about the other discussion however is indistinguishable from a meta-edit war and should consequently not be eligible for nomination. (Dear humorless admins, this is a joke in response to the above contribution from .177.) -W0lfie (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * For the record, the article specifically says that discussions on the talk page must NEVER be included here, no matter how pedantic they are, to encourage discussion. Mynameisntbob1 (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There hasn't been edit warring over the proposed move, but there has been edit warring over capitalization within the article itself that is strongly linked to the discussion. I think this qualifies it for an entry in this guide. Ibadibam (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This. Ever since the announcement of the title (looking at the actual page's edit history) there have been more edits, reversions, and re-reversions over the single capitalization than many of edit wars already listed here. It's just a bonus that the ensuing argument is long enough to be the screenplay of a feature film on its own (according to one of the participants). —Jesse B. Hannah (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It escalated after I said that and now clearly belongs here. It accidentally (and briefly) became an admin edit war to, which deserves special mention. 129.170.195.151 (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The title of this section should be "Star Trek (i|I)nto Darkness". 68.96.94.208 (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sometimes there are big issues at stake, the debate about which becomes manifested over a few particular examples. If you look at just one of those examples out of the context of the big issue, it will seem lame.  But it's not necessarily lame.  It's just where the discussion about a big issue that could potentially affect myriads of articles happens to be occurring.  I believe this case falls into that category.  --Born2cycle (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek into Darkness and xkcd
I see there is an enormous discussion about how to capitalize Star Trek into Darkness, so much so that xkcd has lampooned the situation. I'm not sure whether it belongs here or not. --Slashme (talk) 11:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was going to say that, but you beat me to it. :( Kayau (talk · contribs) 14:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but a discussion about the comic itself is now going about whether it should be mentioned within the article. It just keeps getting better! Paxsimius (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I can't believe I missed the previous section. Anyway, I decided to WP:Be bold and add it. --Slashme (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Was it an edit war? - Star Trek into Darkness
Was there an actual edit-war about it? I thought it was almost just a discussion. 109.91.242.208 (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, there was an edit war mixed in with other editing. jcgoble3 (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The word "Lame"
Probably isn't the best term to use to characterize the article. 174.115.220.57 (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It would indeed be bad for an article but it's not an article. It's in the Project namespace and therefore not part of the encyclopedia. The top of the page says "This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Please do not take it seriously." The word "lamest" seems fine here, and it has been used since the page started in 2004. It shouldn't be changed now. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Worst Edit Wars' would still be better. -- flying   idiot    18:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "Worst" by which measure? There are many other edit wars about more serious issues, often with more reverts and misbehaviour than most listed here. The point of this humorous page is to show lame things to edit war about, although lameness can of course be subjective. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Why not? 137.165.203.209 (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the consideration is one of ableism. (I am not sure what weight to give it personally.) - David Gerard (talk) 10:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * (groan) I thought lame was a good adjective in that it really encapsulated the arm-wrestles described therein....Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I strongly suspect it is about ableism. That's certainly my objection to the naming. "Most pointless edit wars", for example, would pass the same message without some users/editors finding it offensive. —me_and 10:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

One man's ableism is another man's political correctness. I oppose any rename, because, as noted at the top of the talk page, the title has been cited in many news sources, so in a way it is semi-notable and hence shouldn't be changed on a whim. If you find this article offensive, who knows what you'd make of Complete bollocks. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   10:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I like this page a lot, but I think the ableism is a real issue. I don't expect consensus will agree with me, but we shouldn't call it "lamest" for the same reason we shouldn't call it "Gayest edit wars". Complete bollocks is not comparable since it's not actually insulting to anybody. (Are the bollocks themselves upset?) Anyone rolling their eyes about political correctness can explain to us all why exactly stupid pointless (and hilarious!) edit warring should be associated with disabled people. Staecker (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, "Complete bollocks" is not insulting to you. But I'm pretty sure if I found a db-web candidate and pointed the article's creator to that essay, they'd be quite upset. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   13:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I won't really push this, since I assume SNOW is against me. But it's not about "people might be upset". It's about using language about physical disability as a stand-in for general negativity. Similarly, "Gayest edit wars" isn't bad because it might upset gay people (it probably would)- it's bad because it uses "gay" as a synonym for "stupid" or "pointless" or whatever else we're talking about. Staecker (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This kind of edit warring should not be associated with disabled people, and it is not. In fact, less so than your comment associated the instances of edit warring described on this page with people with intellectual disabilities. And calling Justice blind does not reflect in any way, either positive or negative, on blind people. These are just metaphors, and so long as these metaphors start with the actual characteristics of a class of people (lame conflicts go nowhere and certainly don't fly; they are stupid in the sense that people would able to avoid them if they thought coolly about them; Justice is supposed to be impartial in a way that most of us can only be if we dont know who we are dealing with, which requires closing our eyes) rather than a secondary negative characteristic which many associate with them (calling these edit wars gay would be based on the idea that they deserve as little respect as, supposedly, do gay people; no relation to homosexuality). Hans Adler 13:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

This page, so long as it exists, is always going to have a degree of ridicule to it. It isn't a front-facing part of the project, but a niche humour page. Were "Wikipedia:Don't be lame" an official policy page or something, I'd agree that renaming it so that it didn't contain ableist language was probably a low-cost improvement to the project. But for a page whose basic point is "lol Wikipedians bikeshed over the most idiotic things", we can get away with a small amount of very-slightly-off-colour vernacular. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Making fun of handicapped people is hilarious! It's the Battlefield Earth of article names. Let's call this "Most Crip Downz Joey Lame Mong Retard Schizo Spaz Shortbus Sperg Window-licker edit wars". Then we can build on that and insult blacks, jews, gays, Muslims, etc. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Great. Your satire is so biting and real. 174.115.220.57 (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Map projection
It's a bit early (best to wait until the case at WP:DRN closes), but Dispute resolution noticeboard looks like it will be a good LEW addition. Is a soccer ball a sphere? Is a sphere two-dimensional? Is the surface of a sphere 1-dimensional, while the surface of a ball is two-dimensional? Does the surface of the earth have a Fractal dimension? Do we believe the Oxford American Dictionary or Wolfram Mathworld? One way or the other, this opens up new dimensions of fighting over content. --Guy Macon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

A vote on the top 10 lamest edit wars
I suggest we vote on the top 10 lamest edit wars in the history of Wikipedia. The purpose of this is to have a special section on the page where the lamest of the lamest edit wars are documented. The guidelines are below:
 * 1. You may vote for up to 5 edit wars. Your top pick (the very lamest edit war, in your opinion) gets 5 points, your second pick gets 4 points, and so on, down to your fifth pick, which gets one point.
 * 2. At the end of the vote (a week from now or after 15 people have voted, whichever comes later), the 10 edit wars with the most points will be the "winners", in order of points scored (the edit war with the most points out of every edit war in wiki-history will be considered the #1 lamest edit war, the one with the second-most points will be #2, and so on). The 10 "winners" will be moved to a special section of Lamest edit wars to be recognized as the lamest of the lamest edit wars.
 * 3. Don't worry; I'll handle everything.
 * 4. Be specific when voting. Don't leave us in the dark; provide details, especially when the edit war is not listed on Lamest edit wars (please also provide diffs when the war is unlisted).
 * 5. For the purposes of this vote, wheel wars and deletion wars may be counted as edit wars.
 * 6. Provide reasons for your votes, but be civil and don't provoke others.
 * 7. Vote at the bottom of the section.
 * 8. Questions? | Ask me!

I hope this vote is a fun project. Good luck! C h r o m a Nebula  (talk)   16:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I like it. I'll take my vote right now.
 * 1. Bathrobe (image) - Come on, it started its own cabal!
 * 2. Cow Tipping (image) - It ended with "A cow in its natural upright state", which in my opinion is almost as bad as the original "An unsuspecting potential victim?"
 * 3. Grand Theft Auto IV (ethnic) - Because we all care about the nationality of a VIDEO GAME CHARACTER.
 * 4. Cute (wording) - Because nothing is more important than deciding whether the word "cute" applied to something makes it NPOV.
 * 5. Katie Couric (wording) - Let's just call her an entertaining journalist and be done with it. (And no, it is not necessary to mention that she drops "g"s at the end of words).
 * Hope that helped! Brambleberry of RiverClan Mew ♠ Tail 13:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I have an add-on suggestion. in order to avoid the preferences of any one editor editor having too much weight, I suggest requiring at least five votes for a particular edit war before it is is put on the list. --17:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * IMO, eds should be disqualified from voting in EWs in which they were involved. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Suggestion 1 taken, with slight modification. 5 votes are required to make the list (unless fewer than 5 edit wars get at least 5 votes). As for Suggestion 2: Why? People often can say, "Looking back on this, this was too lame to be fighting about and I regret my involvement." Those involved admitting that it's lame is further proof of lameness, because it can be a blow to the psyche to say you were involved in a lame edit war! It's not that I don't respect your opinion, it's just that I'm wondering why you hold it. C h r o m a Nebula   (talk)   23:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I would imagine that someone might unconsciously see an edit war they were involved in as being more prominent than a more listworthy one they weren't involved in. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply to ChromaNebula,
 * Involved eds who want to apologize and get back to editing do that on article/user talk and, I suspect, are unlikely to stop by here. If so, then eds who do post here are doing something else. What could that be? My gut believes most entries on this list are about shaming and stealth battlegrounding. The exception would be when parties from all sides of a dispute agree to enter their EW here by mutual accord. Does that ever happen? Beats me. I know the article is supposed to be humor, but there's a fine line between humor that builds us all up, and humor that tears some of us down. The best way to purge the "tear down" form of humor is by leaving posting here (or voting for the top 10) to be up to uninvolved eds. My guess is that the rate of additions would plummet. In my opinion, that would reflect a decrease in shaming and stealth battlegrounding. But I could be wrong. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh. Point taken. C h r o m a Nebula   (talk)   16:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Minor errors on the Lamest Edit Wars page
I noticed that there might be an error with the punctuation in 'B.A.T' [sic] in the 'Export House, that internationally renowned tower block in Woking' section under 'Places and other things' under the 'Ethnic and national feuds' section. I would like to know whether or not this was intentional. Udderfly (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

lame...
I revel at this articles "lameness"! Jdaniels15 (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I strongly feel that this page is, in itself, an edit war. Should it even exist?Jdaniels15 (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Editwar-ception.21:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)2601:4:2900:19:DC88:2AB1:79A2:35BB (talk)

Is it edit-war or edit war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdaniels15 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I like "editwar". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"Editwar" is perfect, in my opinion. 75* 17:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Genesis vs Mega Drive
"But far more reliable sources use Genesis" is an incorrect myth perpetuated by proponents of Genesis and should be removed. I won't do it myself as I am involved in the current round of discussions on the subject. &lt; Karlww ( contribs &#124; talk ) 02:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I just completely rewrote it. Entries in this page need far fewer boring details and a far more neutral and humorous tone. Please describe the war without any hint of taking sides, and avoid rehashing the war. Even though we all know in our hearts which is obviously the correct article title -- see my edit. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, it's the box you play Sonic the Hedgehog on. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   20:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)